I talked with Scott Wolter yesterday, and he let me know that he met
with Lofvendahl, the Swedish geologist, for over 7 hours a week or so
ago, examining and discussing the runestone at the museum in
Halsingland. According to Wolter, Lofvendahl is a "class act."
Much of the information that was discussed will have to wait for
public announcemnet, but in regards to the side of the stone, which
has recently been discussed here, the problem seems to have developed
due to a misunderstanding about what was meant by dressing the stone.
Lofvendahl apparently thought that the dressing of the stone meant
that the entire side of the stone had been subject to a dressing
procedure - smoothing out any roughness on the side. There is no
evidence of such working on the flat part of the stone.
Wolter, however, had meant a rough dressing. The stonecutter would
have scored the outer edges of the uncut stone, and with a few sharp
strokes, cleaved off the relatively flat edge on which the inscription
was carved. I have seen this done in the past. The missed
communication apparently resulted in the objection that the stone had
not been dressed at the time of the inscription. This problems seems
to have been resolved.

Michael

Greenland's tithes collecting was called 'Tiendtaket'.
Tiend=1/10 or tithes in English. 'taket' = the collecting of the tithes.
Source: Eldbjørg Haug, Provincia Nidrosiensis, i dronning Margretes
unions-
og maktpolitikk, page 367
Dissertation Trondheim 1996
Nr 13 i Skriftserie fra Historisk Institutt Trondheim
ISBN 82-7765-013-2

Ref given is to: Steinnes Ausgaut,Gamal Skatteskipnad I, Oslo 1933.

And the 'op-' prefix is known to have existed in many documents of the
time.

I would like to know by those who speak against the stone how on top of
all
other things a person in 18th or 19th century coming from Sweden should
have
known that?

Michael and other,
I think it's time to let you all know what I have known for a year or two
but which to my knowledge only one scholar in Trondheim written about in his
Dissertation, which passed unnoticed but which directly has an impact on the
discussion re. opt[h]agelsefard[h]. Which also can be read optakelsefard.

So many other scholars, linguists historians and archaeologists haven't done
their homework..... it took me some time before I looked into it as well so
I took some years before I went looking in the Papalchurch and the
Ecliastical documents that I have to admit.....
anyhow.

Greenland's tithes collecting was called 'Tiendtaket'.
Tiend=1/10 or tithes in English. 'taket' = the collecting of the tithes.
Source: Eldbjørg Haug, Provincia Nidrosiensis, i dronning Margretes unions-
og maktpolitikk, page 367
Dissertation Trondheim 1996
Nr 13 i Skriftserie fra Historisk Institutt Trondheim
ISBN 82-7765-013-2

Ref given is to: Steinnes Ausgaut,Gamal Skatteskipnad I, Oslo 1933.

And the 'op-' prefix is known to have existed in many documents of the time.

I would like to know by those who speak against the stone how on top of all
other things a person in 18th or 19th century coming from Sweden should have
known that?

Inger E

Michael and other,
I think it's time to let you all know what I have known for a year or two
but which to my knowledge only one scholar in Trondheim written about in his
Dissertation, which passed unnoticed but which directly has an impact on the
discussion re. opt[h]agelsefard[h]. Which also can be read optakelsefard.

So many other scholars, linguists historians and archaeologists haven't done
their homework..... it took me some time before I looked into it as well so
I took some years before I went looking in the Papalchurch and the
Ecliastical documents that I have to admit.....
anyhow.

Greenland's tithes collecting was called 'Tiendtaket'.
Tiend=1/10 or tithes in English. 'taket' = the collecting of the tithes.

Source: Eldbjørg Haug, Provincia Nidrosiensis, i dronning Margretes unions-
og maktpolitikk, page 367
Dissertation Trondheim 1996
Nr 13 i Skriftserie fra Historisk Institutt Trondheim
ISBN 82-7765-013-2

Ref given is to: Steinnes Ausgaut,Gamal Skatteskipnad I, Oslo 1933.

And the 'op-' prefix is known to have existed in many documents of the time.

I would like to know by those who speak against the stone how on top of all
other things a person in 18th or 19th century coming from Sweden should have
known that?

Michael and other,
I think it's time to let you all know what I have known for a year or two
but which to my knowledge only one scholar in Trondheim written about in his
Dissertation, which passed unnoticed but which directly has an impact on the
discussion re. opt[h]agelsefard[h]. Which also can be read optakelsefard.

So many other scholars, linguists historians and archaeologists haven't done
their homework..... it took me some time before I looked into it as well so
I took some years before I went looking in the Papalchurch and the
Ecliastical documents that I have to admit.....
anyhow.

Greenland's tithes collecting was called 'Tiendtaket'.
Tiend=1/10 or tithes in English. 'taket' = the collecting of the tithes.
Source: Eldbjørg Haug, Provincia Nidrosiensis, i dronning Margretes unions-
og maktpolitikk, page 367
Dissertation Trondheim 1996
Nr 13 i Skriftserie fra Historisk Institutt Trondheim
ISBN 82-7765-013-2

I read "optakelsefard" as "undertaking" + "trip/travel/journey". It
doesn't translate well into English, but nothing turns on that anyway.
An English translation has to be rather loose by necessity, but it
doesn't alter the Swedish at all, which is readily understandable.

[..]

I talked with Scott Wolter yesterday, and he let me know that he met
with Lofvendahl, the Swedish geologist, for over 7 hours a week or so
ago, examining and discussing the runestone at the museum in
Halsingland. According to Wolter, Lofvendahl is a "class act."
Much of the information that was discussed will have to wait for
public announcemnet, but in regards to the side of the stone, which
has recently been discussed here, the problem seems to have developed
due to a misunderstanding about what was meant by dressing the stone.
Lofvendahl apparently thought that the dressing of the stone meant
that the entire side of the stone had been subject to a dressing
procedure - smoothing out any roughness on the side. There is no
evidence of such working on the flat part of the stone.
Wolter, however, had meant a rough dressing. The stonecutter would
have scored the outer edges of the uncut stone, and with a few sharp
strokes, cleaved off the relatively flat edge on which the inscription
was carved. I have seen this done in the past. The missed
communication apparently resulted in the objection that the stone had
not been dressed at the time of the inscription. This problems seems
to have been resolved.

Michael

m_zalar@hotmail.com (Michael Zalar) wrote in message news:<a458909b.0402160330.178f8e9b@posting.google.com>...
I talked with Scott Wolter yesterday, and he let me know that he met
with Lofvendahl, the Swedish geologist, for over 7 hours a week or so
ago, examining and discussing the runestone at the museum in
Halsingland. According to Wolter, Lofvendahl is a "class act."
Much of the information that was discussed will have to wait for
public announcemnet, but in regards to the side of the stone, which
has recently been discussed here, the problem seems to have developed
due to a misunderstanding about what was meant by dressing the stone.
Lofvendahl apparently thought that the dressing of the stone meant
that the entire side of the stone had been subject to a dressing
procedure - smoothing out any roughness on the side. There is no
evidence of such working on the flat part of the stone.
Wolter, however, had meant a rough dressing. The stonecutter would
have scored the outer edges of the uncut stone, and with a few sharp
strokes, cleaved off the relatively flat edge on which the inscription
was carved. I have seen this done in the past. The missed
communication apparently resulted in the objection that the stone had
not been dressed at the time of the inscription. This problems seems
to have been resolved.

Michael

I wonder why all those responding to this post
have chosen to 'talk' about something entirely
different?

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
news:<40335B98.C43EEA0@not.pollis.net.au>...

I read "optakelsefard" as "undertaking" + "trip/travel/journey". It
doesn't translate well into English, but nothing turns on that
anyway. An English translation has to be rather loose by necessity,
but it doesn't alter the Swedish at all, which is readily
understandable.

In modern Danish optagelse means discovery as does opptakelse in
Norwegian.

dragonseed@spray.se (unglued) wrote in
news:35f2c8ef.0402181119.780ca455@posting.google.com:

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
news:<40335B98.C43EEA0@not.pollis.net.au>...

I read "optakelsefard" as "undertaking" + "trip/travel/journey". It
doesn't translate well into English, but nothing turns on that
anyway. An English translation has to be rather loose by necessity,
but it doesn't alter the Swedish at all, which is readily
understandable.

In modern Danish optagelse means discovery as does opptakelse in
Norwegian.

Nope. Discovery in modern Norwegian is "oppdagelse", not "opptakelse".
The word apparently is made up of two parts - "opp" (up) and "dag"
(day) - ie bring up to day, make clear, find out - something like
that. Discovery.

"Opptakelse" means something different - it can be used in the sense
"absorbtion" (of a drug, booze whatever), but more commonly it would
be understood as "the process of accepted into a group", like being
accepted for a university or a club or something like that.

FWIW,

Grin,
Stein

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message news:<40335B98.C43EEA0@not.pollis.net.au>...

I read "optakelsefard" as "undertaking" + "trip/travel/journey". It
doesn't translate well into English, but nothing turns on that anyway.
An English translation has to be rather loose by necessity, but it
doesn't alter the Swedish at all, which is readily understandable.

In modern Danish optagelse means discovery as does opptakelse in Norwegian.

No, ´optagelse` means ´admission`. ´Opdagelse` however, means ´discovery`.

In modern Danish optagelse means discovery as does opptakelse in
Norwegian.

Nope. Discovery in modern Norwegian is "oppdagelse", not "opptakelse".

The word apparently is made up of two parts - "opp" (up) and "dag"
(day) - ie bring up to day, make clear, find out - something like
that. Discovery.

"Opptakelse" means something different - it can be used in the sense
"absorbtion" (of a drug, booze whatever), but more commonly it would
be understood as "the process of accepted into a group", like being
accepted for a university or a club or something like that.

FWIW,

Grin,
Stein

Stein R <steinjr@nospam.com> wrote in message

In modern Danish optagelse means discovery as does opptakelse in
Norwegian.

Nope. Discovery in modern Norwegian is "oppdagelse", not
"opptakelse".

Yes and opdagelse in Danish, my mix up.

The word apparently is made up of two parts - "opp" (up) and "dag"
(day) - ie bring up to day, make clear, find out - something like
that. Discovery.

Unless it has the same Germanic roots as upptäckt in Swedish,
aufdecken ( uncover) but that looks a bit remote.

dragonseed@spray.se (unglued) wrote in
news:35f2c8ef.0402181119.780ca455@posting.google.com:

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
news:<40335B98.C43EEA0@not.pollis.net.au>...

I read "optakelsefard" as "undertaking" + "trip/travel/journey". It
doesn't translate well into English, but nothing turns on that
anyway. An English translation has to be rather loose by necessity,
but it doesn't alter the Swedish at all, which is readily
understandable.

In modern Danish optagelse means discovery as does opptakelse in
Norwegian.

Nope. Discovery in modern Norwegian is "oppdagelse", not "opptakelse".
The word apparently is made up of two parts - "opp" (up) and "dag"
(day) - ie bring up to day, make clear, find out - something like
that. Discovery.

"Opptakelse" means something different - it can be used in the sense
"absorbtion" (of a drug, booze whatever), but more commonly it would
be understood as "the process of accepted into a group", like being
accepted for a university or a club or something like that.