Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rune of the Month

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rae'ya
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    Pertho

    Elder Futhark:Proto Germanic, meaning unknown
    Younger Futhark: na
    Anglo Saxon Futhorc:Old English, meaning unknown (but there are some assumptions, which it would be great for us to discuss below)

    Phonetic value: 'p'

    Pronunciation: this awesome website with recordings of Old English vowels and diphthongs. It's amazing and I think anyone who actually finds the pronunciation interesting like nerdy me should listen to it.

    Now you all reply and add your insights...

    Leave a comment:


  • Rae'ya
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    Uruz is one of my favourite runes, and one that I can connect with very strongly. To me it is about personal power and strength, not just in the physical sense but in a non physical sense also. It's about the potential we all have to square our shoulders and get things done. It's that deep well of personal power that resides within all of us... that raw, untamed potential to be fierce and strong and determined. It's our ability to stand our ground, lower our horns and face our challenges. Uruz himself is the great aurochs, a big black bull who's sheer presence is as strong as his rippling muscles, who's great horns can be wielded with finesse and surety, who cannot be intimidated or bullied into working for us but who must be partnered with and appreciated for the magnificent creature that he is.

    I think Uruz is a very confronting rune for many people, and can easily scare newcomers off. Uruz is large, powerful, strong, intimidating and sublimely capable of trampling you into the dirt. It takes confidence to work closely with Uruz, as well as a healthy respect for the fact that it is much stronger than you. You can't manhandle Uruz. You have to earn it's trust and respect. But once you do, it's a very powerful and loyal ally.

    I use Uruz in workings where I want to tap into personal strength and potential, or to bolster confidence in one's own abilities. Many people consider it a healing rune, but I think that it's usefulness in healing is about helping your body to tap into it's own resources and healing abilities. It's not a gentle healer or nurturer like, say, Berkana... but it can give you direct access to the natural defenses and healing mechanisms that you already possess... provided you have the constitution to heal yourself rather than wait for someone to come along and do it for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tylluan Penry
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    Originally posted by Munin-Hugin View Post
    I've always approached Uruz as pure, unadulterated strength, a connection to the auroch as Tylluan and Rae'ya mentioned. There seems to be a connection between each set of 8 runes in the EF with relation to the creation of things. Uruz falls into the first Aet, and is the second rune as such. It's primal, base, and closely connected to the element of earth and to Thor. I use it to empower workings, to encourage health, and to bolster determination.
    I find the link with Thor (AS THunor) intriguing because although - for me - Thunor does turn up in the runes, I never find him here.
    Wayland though, oh yes, he's lurking about...

    Leave a comment:


  • Munin-Hugin
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    I've always approached Uruz as pure, unadulterated strength, a connection to the auroch as Tylluan and Rae'ya mentioned. There seems to be a connection between each set of 8 runes in the EF with relation to the creation of things. Uruz falls into the first Aet, and is the second rune as such. It's primal, base, and closely connected to the element of earth and to Thor. I use it to empower workings, to encourage health, and to bolster determination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tylluan Penry
    replied
    this is what confronts us? What is it? What does it mean?
    Wayland Smith, anyone? Can you see the connection?

    Leave a comment:


  • MaskedOne
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    It's ALIIIIIIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Also, the OP hath been updated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rae'ya
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    Yeah, yeah... I'm like... five months late. But better late than never, right? Right? :slap:

    Also... I JUST realised that I can use the 'straight line' tool in Paint to make the runes without my awesome gaming mouse making it wobble around everywhere even when I've got it turned right down. Don't know why it took me so long to figure that out, but I was very excited that I did. So enjoy my new, NOT wobbly hand drawn rune images!

    Back into it with one of my favourite runes...

    Uruz

    Elder Futhark: *Ūruz, Proto Germanic, meaning 'auroch' (a type of extinct wild bovine)
    Younger Futhark:Old NorseAnglo Saxon Futhorc:Old English, meaning 'auroch'

    Phonetic value: 'u'

    Pronunciation: Now you all reply and add your insights...

    [And a quick reminder, 'cos it's been so long..Pronunciations are what I've put together over the years from a variety of sources. I can maybe dig out a list if I have to, but it involves lots of books and websites, some of which are contradictory. They are based on reconstructed languages that are no longer commonly spoken, NOT on modern German or Scandinavian languages. My advice is that if you want to look at modern languages, Modern Icelandic is the closest to Old Norse, but still has some major differences. Modern Danish, Swedish and Finnish are not accurate representations of Old Norse or Proto Germanic sounds, and while Modern German has some sounds right, it uses different letters and characters to represent them. I've never looked into Old Icelandic, so I don't have those pronunciations for the Younger Futhark runes. American speakers in particular may struggle with my pronunciations as some of the vowel sounds will be quite alien. Having said that, there are a million modern bastardisations of the rune names, so there's nothing wrong with a modern pronunciation it that's what you want to go with.]

    Leave a comment:


  • Tylluan Penry
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    Back in post No, 68 on this thread, I mentioned the problem with translations. Nowadays I prefer to do my own for the Anglo-Saxon runes. However I have also over the years collected most of the major translations, and one thing that never fails to amaze me is the differences: the same rune verse, all these scholars and all these translations.
    But I am talking here purely from the AS rune poem point of view. My question is - for those using other rune poems, do you have the same problem? Do you work with the original language, personal gnosis or do you have a favourite translation you use?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tylluan Penry
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    There is also a theory that certain of the runes (in the AS version at any rate) refer covertly to certain deities. Mannus in this case. But that's just a theory - still, it's worth thinking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tylluan Penry
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    I think also there is a degree of enlightenment to be considered with this rune. It can help to compare the language with the original texts - often translators take a few liberties!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rae'ya
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    To me Mannaz is about humanity and social relationships. Not partnerships and co-operative ventures (which I think is Ehwaz's domain) but social groups, group dynamics and cohabitation. It's one of those runes that has a lot of nuance, depending on the runes that surround it in a reading... they ALL have nuance and layered meaning, but Mannaz I think is particularly susceptible to the dynamics of the other runes. I use it in bindrunes to help in situations that require interacting with other people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Norse_Angel
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    I feel Mannaz is all self enriched. Every time I pull it, I know that whatever there is to fix, or whatever is at question can always be brought back into my own being, and that I have to work from the inside out to achieve a type of ending. On many Runes, you need a type of action or proposal from yourself to face with the gods, only tracing around with action to entice. I sense Mannaz is more so structured around my own body and being to become what I can make of it.
    One of my favorite runes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Odahviing
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    To me Mannaz is a reminder of all the different aspects of the human condition/experience as well as our relationships to ourselves and others. But I'm running a fever so my mind is a little muddled... I'll have to get back to this later when my head is screwed on right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tylluan Penry
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    In the AS stanza at any rate, the verse looks forward to the final one, Ear, the grave. So I feel here that we're being called upon to think about our mortality, that we are human beings, yes, and also individuals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rae'ya
    replied
    Re: Rune of the Month

    Originally posted by Tylluan Penry View Post
    I think it's really important on this rune to remember that 'man' has many different meanings. In the AS rune poem, we have a variety of words - all often translated as 'man' which are quite different and so it's very important to understand this. For example in the first fune verse, Feoh, the word 'fira' is used for man, and this reappears in the Aesc verse too (unique to the Anglo-Saxon one). However fira is not really the same as man. There is a man, mankind, human-type beings (yes, honestly!) and these are all slightly different.
    So I will kick off with this - what sort of 'man' are we talking about in this verse?
    I think this is a really good point and a great starting point for Mannaz.

    Personally I take the Proto-Germanic definition of 'human' when talking about Mannaz. This is also one of the meanings of the Old English 'mann'... it often meant man in the sense of a 'human' irrespective of gender (just as we use the term today to refer to either a man or to a member of mankind). In Old English, the gender specific terms for 'man' and 'woman' were generally 'wer' and 'wif' respectively, and in Old Norse they were 'ver' and 'vif' respectively. I think that if Mannaz were meant to indicate a human male person, one of these terms would have been a more likely name for it. I think the fact that it is named Mannaz/Madhr/Mann, which in all three languages PLUS modern English can mean a male person or a person in general, is significant.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X