Talk:Thurisaz

message: I think this needs expanded on more, and some brief explanation of why Thurisaz is the speculated word.  Stating "it'll be Þurisaz" doesn't explain WHY.  Is there a Wiki page that covers this research?  I'm aware that reconstructions of proto languages are useful, but how accurate are they?  I don't know.  More links or info would help.Mzmadmike 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparative method in linguistics and the way reconstruction is done are complex issues and not easy to summarise. It's sort of like the way palaeontologists reconstruct the appearance of prehistoric life forms, palaeobotanists prehistoric vegetation, geologists prehistoric continents, palaeodemographers ancient population numbers or archaeologists prehistoric cultures. People study YEARS to be able to do this stuff, and it's a lot of work; there's no way anyone could explain it to you in five minutes. You'd be best served by reading an introduction to historical linguistics; Fortson (2004) (full title can be found at Proto-Indo-European language) is a current one that does a good job at explaining the matter to total newbies. But to get a feel for the problem, try to figure out how Latin developped into the modern Romance languages and perhaps try to reconstruct the specific kind of (popular) Latin from which they descended (it would be a great idea to incorporate data from medieval Romance, as well) – that was basically how linguists figured out how to reconstruct completely unattested parent languages, too ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: And how exactly do you explain the missing consonant at the beginning and the missing s in the middle? Apart from being original research, your proposal is also profoundly unconvincing. You can't just link any two words that sound vaguely similar. Your proposal would never have a chance to be published in academic linguistic journals – unless you develop it and are able to overcome the difficulties inherent in the proposal. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Proto-Germanic

message: I read somewhere that thurisaz is derived from the Phoenecian letter teth - somewhere along the line, the horizontal stroke was lost to get something that looks a bit like a Φ, and then later on the circular part contracted to one side of the vertical stroke. I seem to remember the route was via Gothic runes and some kind of alpine alphabet. I can't find a citation, though!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.254.146 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less correct, yes. If you find a citation though, make sure it is a proper source, and not some nonsensical New Age work. If you wish to contribute to the improvement of the rune articles, you are welcome to create an account and join the task force Runic studies, just so you know. –Holt  T•C 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to teth and theta 

message: Why does it say that Þurs is mentioned in three Runic poems when the English one mentions only Þorn? -- Evertype·✆ 01:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clairified the wording to attempt to remove any confusion. - SudoGhost 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Þorn and Þurs 

message: The name of the monster/giant/god Iku-Turso (attested in the variants Tursas and Turisas, too) looks so much like a Finnic borrowing from *þurisaz that I'd call it glaringly obvious, in fact – sort of like Proto-Finnic *kuniŋkas from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz, *reŋkas from *χringaz, *lampas from *lambaz, *kulta from *gulþa(n) and (Post-Proto-Finnic, in this case, because of the *ti which didn't become si) *ruktinas from *druχtinaz are bleedingly obvious. Does anyone happen to know where one can encounter the same observation in the relevant literature to elevate this from OR status? It would be really baffling if the link had not been made. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borrowing into Finnic? 

message: Every time I think about the Thurs -> Giant interpretation, I wonder why the poem would say "is the torturer of (causes anguish to) women". It doesn't make much sense, unless there is a kenning I don't know.
Now, this following is hardly scientific, but wouldn't it be much more logical to assume that "Thorn" means "thorn", so the reason it's the torturer of women is that in those days, women were the ones gathering berries, and so would be the only ones to prick their fingers on the thorns?
Or does it have something to do with menstruation? A thorn causes blood to flow, so might have been an euphemism for the menstruation. Or maybe even people in those days believed women had a thorn inside that pricked them?
This is speculation of course, but I haven't been able to source anything on the matter. Maybe someone else with more knowledge than I could clarify?
85.81.40.95 (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant / Thorn 

message: What is this article even about? Its title is Thurisaz but it contains no definition of this nor is the word used anywhere in the text. What is it? The name of a monster? The name of a mythology? The article should start with some sort of definition!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.146.109 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural problem