Talk:Ragnarök/Archive 1

Translation request

Does anyone know exactly what the word means? I've turned up "rain of ashes", "rain of dust", and (most often) "fate/twilight/night/doom of the gods"—but the only place that "rein wreck" appears is in this article and copies thereof. —No-One Jones 11:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Svensk etymologisk ordbok (Swedish Etymological Dictionary) by Elof Hellquist (available through Project Runeberg) gives the meaning as "Fate of the gods". "Ragna-" is the genitive plural of "regin" ("god" or "ruling power", same as Latin Italic textrexItalic text) while "rok" means "fate" (pl.), etymologically related to English "reach".

According to E.V. Gordon's An Introduction to Old Norse (Oxford University Press 1957, ISBN 0-19-811184-3), the Old Norse form of the word is Ragnarøkr (attested in the Prose Edda) and it does mean "twilight of the gods". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 1 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Mythica (Pantheon.org) specifically says it doesn't mean "twilight of the gods" though. It's a mistranslation. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/r/ragnarok.html -Gyozilla 05:59, 22 Jan 2007 (UTC)

There are two words, one of which means this and one of which doesn't. The one that doesn't is usually thought to be more original but both certainly occur in the Old Norse sources. Haukur (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sindri

This article claims Sindri is a hall. I beleve this is a missunderstanding of the völuspá verse:

 Stóð fyr norðan
 á Niðavöllum
 salur úr gulli
 Sindra ættar

often traslated as

 To the north there stood
 on Nidafjöll
 a hall of gold
 of Sindri's lineage

Sindri's linage referes to dwarfs, and Sindri being one of them. The verse is claiming there is a hall of gold in Niðarvellir owned by dwarfs. --Sindri 16:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a year after the fact but for anyone else who's wondering, you and the article are both correct. The information pertaining to Sindri as a hall for the virtuous after Ragnarök is from Gylfaginning 52 -

"That too is a good hall which stands in Nida Fells, made of red gold; its name is Sindri. In these halls shall dwell good men and pure in heart." Cerdic 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyr

"Tyr will manage to kill Garm, but will be so severely wounded that he will survive until after the world is destroyed in fire". This makes no sense, but I don't know anything about the battle, maybe someone who does could fix it?

I think it means that Tyr will be unable to fight because he is so severely wounded, the rest I'm not sure about. User:Thorton

Gylfaginning 51: "Then shall the dog Garmr be loosed, which is bound before Gnipa's Cave: he is the greatest monster; he shall do battle with Týr, and each become the other's slayer."

The primary reference source for this mutually fatal duel mentions nothing about Tyr surviving. The line in the article should probably be rewritten if there are no objections. Cerdic 17:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...but doesnt Tyr get eaten alive by Garmr, whom then stabs the dog in the heart? I read this on this page, and no one seems to have corrected him. If so, how could he be severely wounded? Wounldnt he just be, well, dead? Thanks.Warlockian (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Decimation

"These two events also differ in that after Ragnarök, both sides are ultimately decimated, whereas in the Book of Revelation, God is clearly victorious over the forces of Satan."

To decimate literally means to take away 10%. Someone should choose a better word.

Understood. How is 'eviscerate?' Feel free to substitute it for something you find more appropriate. :bloodofox: 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "devastate" is much more appropriate than "decimate" and/or "eviscerate". --Inoculatedcities 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Decimate would literally mean to divide by ten. I think decimate is a perfect word, especially since most connotations follow this. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

decimation refers to the Ancient Roman military punishment of killing one soldier in ten. Its meaning has become confused though, as it is sometimes used to imply a much more substantial reduction than 10%. This ambiguity makes it a difficult word to use intelligbly! I would suggest something like "almost completely destroyed" :-). PateraIncus (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we call it ragnarök with "ö"

And not ragnarok? As the real name is? I also see this article was started with ragnarok. Then someone has changed it to ragnerök. --Comanche cph 12:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because that's how it's spelled. It's an Old Norse word, and ö and o are different letters in Norse. --FOo 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Norse use Runes. And the english word for it is "Ragnarok", like it also is the Danish and Norwegian word.

The standardized Old Norse spelling is "Ragnarök"; it is widely used in English - see Britannica for example [1] Haukur 08:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you linking to "Old Norse orthography"?

Just because britanica use it as 1 exsample dosen't it mean that is the right.

You find 7.150.000 google pages on "ragnarok", and 1.130.000 on ragnarök.

On google-UK it finds 167.000 on "Ragnarok", and 1,590 on "Ragnarök".

And Britannica says "As described in the 10th-century Icelandic poem Völuspá" The word was used long time before. And this is only the Icelandic spelling of the word.

Ragnarok is the English word. + the also Norwegian and Danish spelling.

I can see YOU are the one who has changed it to ragnarök from ragnarok http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ragnar%C3%B6k&diff=40917754&oldid=40742943

And also Icelanded all the other name words in this text.

--Comanche cph 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't move the article, though I did bring its text into sync with its title. In my opinion sheer number of Google hits is less important than usage in reliable published sources. Both Encarta and Britannica use this spelling [2] [3], as do many more specialized reference works. Haukur 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Britannica is not a neutral encyclopedia. It seems to only use the Snorre sources. And claim that as what is right, this happen to the Rollo og Normandy to. So I would't use that as a source.

It seems like you have done a good job in changing all words into Icelandic spelling form. But why!

The thing is that. Ö not is a English word. And Ragnarök is only used in Icelandic. Only in Norwegian and Danish, AND English, is it spelled Ragnarok.

The word Ragnarok was also and still is used in Norway and Denmark, to describe something chaotic. --Comanche cph 10:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

man, what sort of oblique national campaign is this now? I honestly think you should find something productive to do. And yes, our main source is Snorri, you'll just have to live with that. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think the point is exactly that some Icelandic nationalist has been running around changing everything. Ragnarok is the way the word is spelled in modern English. Ragnarök should be put up as an alternative spelling. This also applies to a lot of other words in this text that have been intentionally changed. - BIJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.43.100 (talk • contribs)

Snorre as main source??? Snorre was a Icelandic historican from the 12 century.

This article was also started as Ragnarok. Until some Icelandic national campaign changed it. And Ragnarok is the English word for it. --Comanche cph 11:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

so? It is hardly Snorri's fault that no 9th century Dane (or wherever you are from) composed a mythography. If you're going to edit-war, have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution first, express yourself in a coherent fashion . At the moment, your activities look like a confused trolling campaign. If you have a point to make, try to present it concisely, point by point, explaining on what authorities you are basing your opinion. People will not be interested in second-guessing your intentions by following your trail of belligerence across assorted talkpages. (and you might consider signing with five tildes while you're at it) dab (ᛏ) 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to be rude man. - BIJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.43.100 (talk • contribs)

Trolling campaign.

Who has changed this from ragnarok to ragnarök??? Dude you probably don't know a much about this subject, so you will do best in just leave it. You can't relate everything to Snorre. Snorre's book is mostly a collection taken from other places, rewroted on Icelandic. The guy who started this article was right and it's not second-guessing. --Comanche cph 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

uh-huh. good luck, Comanche. dab (ᛏ) 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, in Sweden we also say Ragnarök, so it's not only the icelandics that use the term. That's all.. I'm out.--84.217.154.236 21:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I was in fact also a bit puzzled by the fact that someone has spelled "Ragnarok" wrong through the article. For nationalist reasons or...? I know you're probably proud of your heritage and all... but grow up dude - BIJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.43.100 (talk • contribs)

Do we have to bring this up again? I thought it had been settled... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03

28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't really think so. To me it just looks like a gang of Icelandic nationalists ganged up and agreed on a "consensus". Please explain why ragnarok should not be spelled in modern English on the English wikipedia. - BIJ

I agree. What band of merry fools decided to go with a non-English spelling in the English Wikipedia? An English name has been given to the event, and it uses the English alphabet. The English alphabet does not include the character "ö". To insist that English speakers use non-English names is ludicrous, i.e., on part with Germans insisting that English speakers call Germany "Deutchland", or that Korea be spelled in hangul in English texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.53.186 (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On old norse spelling of ragnarök/ragnarok

Bypassing the incoherent trolling/not trolling discussion and getting to the point: The otherwise excellent user Haukurth writes that the standardised old norse spelling is ragnarök. This is not correct. The standardised old norse spelling is ragnarǫk. The ǫ sign (sometimes called o ogonek) is not used in many languages, and is therefore not always displayed on computers, so you may see it as just a square - I don't know too much about this, but I have been told mac's are better in this respect. Anyway, it was pronounced as a slightly more open o sound. In modern Norwegian, it mostly became an o-sound, whereas in Icelandic, it merged with the ö - one of the few differences between Icelandic and old norse orthography. In modern Icelandic editions of old norse texts, the ö-sign is most commonly used.

Whether or not this should have anything to say for which name to use in English is a question of which I have no particular opinion. --Barend 11:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I was imprecise, 'ǫ' is what you usually see in print but 'ö' is what you usually see on the Web for technical reasons (and sometimes in print too). A while ago we had a discussion on using 'ö' to represent 'ǫ' on Wikipedia. Haukur 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

indeed. it is very common to collapse ǫ and ö into ö in ON, even in print. This is a little bit like Avestan š vs. ṣ̌; I have no objection to mentioning the pedantically correct spelling ragnarǫk, of course. The debate above seems to be not about such issues, but whether to use Old Norse spelling at all, as opposed to runic (o_O), Old Danish, Danish, Swedish, or whatever (as you say, the complaint was too incoherent to make out what exactly was being requested) dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the pedantry, Old Norse had both 'ø' and 'ǫ' as distinct phonemes and many editions of Old Norse texts print them as such. Some print 'ø' as 'ø' and 'ǫ' as 'ö' while some print both as 'ö' (representing the state of the language after ca. 1300). Haukur 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A good test case is Ørlǫg / Ørlög / Örlög. Haukur 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And since pedantry is fun, I will continue: When you write that 'ö' represents the state of the language after ca. 1300, you are no longer talking about old norse, but about old Icelandic, as distinct from old Norwegian. Similarly, the long 'ø' had merged with 'æ' in Icelandic by then, not so in old Norwegian. In old Norwegian, the 'ǫ' sometimes became 'o' and sometimes 'ø'. Therefore, if an edition uses 'ö' for 'ǫ', it could be argued that it is no longer an old Norse edition, but an Icelandic edition, or at least and 'Icelandified' old Norse edition. Classic old norse editions, such as 'Islenzk fornrít' use the 'ǫ'.

Ironically, in the medieval manuscripts, apparently, the 'ǫ' sign was only in use in Iceland, not in Norway, so if it is found in a manuscript, that is taken as a sure sign that the manuscript is written in Iceland. --Barend 11:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your mileage may vary :) I think 1300 is actually a conservative estimate, the change may have happened earlier, and I don't think it should be taken as a defining split for Icelandic/Norwegian. Already the very oldest Norwegian manuscripts have a different dialect from the very oldest Icelandic manuscripts (hr > r etc.) but Icelandic and Norwegian were certainly mutually intelligeable throughout the 14th century and considered the same language.

The printing of 'ǫ' as 'ö' is not a specifically Icelandic phenomenon. Here's an edition of Konungs Skuggsjá, as Norwegian a book as they come, which has that trait: [4] Haukur 12:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, what were they thinking? :-) I notice that this book is very old though, 1848? Anyway, in old norse grammars and dictionaries, the 'ǫ' will always be used - or I'd be surprised. But, of course, since it's such a rare symbol, using an ö instead is an easy option, particularly on the net. And of course you're right, Norwegian and Icelandic were still mutually intelligible in the 14th century - but this vowel change would seem to be one of the first points of divergence between the two, though.

Sidebar - the symbol you speak of shows up as a square for me in IE (not using it by choice, it's the backend for VP) but as an o with a tail hook to the right (almost a rho) in FF. Is this the correct mapping? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's right. Actually it shows up as a box for me too, I just took it on faith that Barend had plugged in the right symbol :) You can try the "unicode" template: ørlǫg Haukur 12:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

so, what's the upshot here? Is anyone proposing a move to ragnarǫk, or is this just an academic debate? dab (ᛏ) 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see the point in using old languages. Old Norse had different dialects and runes. So it has probably has been spelled in different ways in Iceland, Norway, Denmark or Sweden. The English word is still "Ragnarok". --Comanche cph 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

anglicized, dear, not English. The point in using old languages is that the topic is Old Norse literature and mythology. And Haukur has pointed you to the article discussing Old Norse orthography. You may want to go over there and learn all about it. dab (ᛏ) 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

dab go away will you. You are on deep water. There are still different spelling ways in old Norse. "ragnarök" is Icelandic. Not old Norse. Look at "Midgard" as an example. --Comanche cph 08:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Who gives a shit about modern Norwegian/Danish? In modern SWEDISH it is spelled Ragnarök. --Ö

See thats why it has been changed, a pro-swedish view.? Do you know that in ENGLISH it is spelled Ragnarok. And do you know that this is a ENGLISH wikipedia. "Ö" is not in the English alfabet. --Comanche cph 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think that in order to be true to the legend, we would want to present the story in the manner of the culture who's responsible for it. By changing it are we not altering it to suit our needs? If it were up to me I would want to keep the Ö, however as I am not an expert in this article, I can only share my opinion. Vila 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

lol. Do you only think the word is used by Snorre in the 12 century? It's very simple. ö is not in the English alphabet. Look at the midgard. Look how this article was before. Look at Google SpellCheck.

Google.co.uk finds 1,610 "ragnarök" (probably taken from here and mirror pages) While 173,000 ragnarok. --Comanche cph 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

May i ask you two Haukur and Barend a question. Why don't you change the Republic of Iceland article to "Lýðveldið Ísland"? Or why not now we are started change Odin Óðinn, Thor to Þórr, Midgard to Miðgarðr, Valhalla to Valhöll.

--Comanche cph 03:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm all for giving Ireland back to the Irish and ridding itself of as much Brittish influence as possible. Vila 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wiktionary link "Look up Ragnarok in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." on the page illustrates perfectly why the article should be named Ragnarok not Ragnarök. --Sindri 11:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• To note, a Google search for Ragnarök (with the o-umlaut) gives 9,790,000 hits [5]. Without the umlaut, Google gives 7,650,000 hits [6]. And it appears that several results are shared between "Ragnarök" and "Ragnarok". Ryūlóng 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your search is wrong. You have to go to "Advanced Search" and find results under "with the exact phrase"
• Then it finds 910,000 results from ragnarök [7]
• And 7,750,000 results from ragnarok [8]
• But this is the world wide search.

If you search for only UK results. http://www.google.co.uk

• It finds 175,000 results from ragnarok [9]
• And only 1,610 from ragnarök [10] (witch probaly just are words taken from here or mirror pages). --Comanche cph 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Google is pretty bad at distinguishing if a word uses an umlaut or not. Btw, doesn't Google automatically scan all the web? By so doing, the result will automatically include not only English material but also e.g. the Danish and Norwegian material which only uses one form - Ragnarok?) Valentinian ^(talk) 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

people, you have a sound discussion of the orthographical issues involved, right above. No need to count google hits. No coherent case is being made. Some weird sort of ethno-mystic insists that things are spelled in Proto-Norse or Elder Futhark, at the same time making assertions about an "English alphabet", and you go counting google hits? That's really Wikipedia anti-elitism at its best :) dab (ᛏ) 22:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To Dab/User:Dbachmann: What is it you don't understand with this is a English wikipedia. And there are still differences in the Old Norse -it's not one language. And why are you starting talking about "proto norse"? You have no idea in what you are talking about. --Comanche cph 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And what's to say that the English Wikipedia cannot use spellings and names from other languages? The Spanish language show Sábado Gigante which is shown in the United States does not have its name on the English Wikipedia as "Gigantic Saturday" which is what the title translates to. The spelling of "Ragnarök" for this article is borrowed from both the Swedish and Icelandic spellings, and the spelling used on the English Wikipedia is also used on the French, Czech, German, and Finnish Wikipedias, as well as the Swedish and Icelandic Wikipedias. Ryūlóng 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

this is a very old debate, and I assure "Comanche" that I know exactly what I am talking about. Haukur is another veteran in this. Comanche, you have no idea, ask Haukur for some links to this issue's past. I say that you make no coherent case, because you mix accusations of "pro-Swedish pov" with issues of standard transliteration: You are a Dane that for all the world wants to see the Danish, not the Swedish spelling here, apparently for reasons of provincial patriotism best known to yourself, and you are prepared to drag any argument apparently supportive of that quest into the fray. We are transliterating Old Norse here. We realize that strictly, the transliteration should be ragnarǫk, and that ragnarök is already "Old Icelandic" (say AD 1200) spelling. We have pointed out that it is standard practice to spell things that way. Your "Danish vs. Swedish" stuff doesn't enter into it. You can read all of this on this page, and Wikipedia articles. But some people prefer to make a lot of noise over just reading things up. That's a character issue, and believe me, you are not the first person of that kind seen on Wikipedia. If you decide to argue that this is not a matter of Swedes vs. Danes after all, but an issue of Wikipedia spelling conventions, the debate does not belong on this page. I direct you to Wikipedia:Use_English#Disputed_issues, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), Wikipedia:Proper_names#Diacritics.2C_ligatures_and_letters_from_.28extended.29_Latin_alphabet_not_commonly_used_in_modern_English, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology), which will tell you that

In its most original form the standardized Old Norse spelling uses the o-ogonek character (ǫ). For technical reasons it is commonly replaced, even in scholarly discourse, with the character 'ö'.

and, for good measure, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn). If you have anything to add to the material there, kindly use those pages' talkpages. Since you have obviously no awareness of the debates contained there, I suggest you go and read all those pages, and come back to tell me I have no idea after you did that. dab (ᛏ) 16:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

omg. Stop putting up some lie against me, with that Danes vs swedish, and that kind of stuff. What is it you don't understand with that Ragnarok is the ENGLISH translation of the old norse word. Like Ragnarök is the Swedish/Icelandic translation

I'm not the one who has changed it from ragnarök to ragnarok. And changed all the other wikipedia pages with the word ragnarok to ragnarök. --Comanche cph 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat. Ragnarok is the English, Danish and Norwegian translation form from old norse and Ragnarök is the German, icelandic and Swedish. (and Ragnarök is NOT old norse)

And what language is this wikipedia on?

You can just write the different translations under the header. But the name is "Ragnarok" --Comanche cph 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

good. I am glad we are past the "I really can't see the point in using old languages. Old Norse had different dialects and runes"-stage now. Now go read the links I gave you. Begin with Wikipedia:Use English. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend, Ragnarök is still not old norse language. Why don't you answer to what i just pointed out to you. --Comanche cph 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

see here. I can only give you the link, you have to click your mousebutton and move your eyeballs yourself, I am afraid. dab (ᛏ) 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What I wanna know is why Britannica use Ragnarök instead of Ragnarok? Anyone?--84.217.154.236 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Link

I'm looking for a place to add the link for Ragnarok, the Dagorhir national event. The naming convention of most of the old Dagorhir has been taken from norse. As this is an article on Ragnarok, and the even shares the same name (having been named after the myth) I thought this would be a good place to start. I'm rather new in the wikipedia editing field. Please Advise. http://www.dagorhir.com/ragnarok/ DeMyztikX 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If the event is notable enough (see WP:NN) then create a new page and link to it from Ragnarok (disambiguation). Otherwise, if it's kinda small just give it a line and a link on that disambig page. And welcome! Stop by any time on my talk page if you need anything else. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Over a thousand people attend yearly, drawing a crowd from around the USA. I did add a line to the disambig page, currently linking to Dagorhir and an unmade entry to the event (still working on filling out the page). Thanks for the help. DeMyztikX 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all "Ragnarök" is not the old Norse word.

Second. If it was, that doesnt matter either, since "Ragnarok" is the English word. --Comanche cph 12:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

first, yes it is, second, no it isn't, see above. you seem to have trouble distinguishing between a "translation" and "anglicization". Contrary to what you say above, the English translation of "Ragnarök" is "fate of the gods". dab (ᛏ) 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true what this article says. Ragnarök is not old norse. Ragnarok is the English --Comanche cph 12:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

no it isn't? dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. --Comanche cph 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'VE GOT TWO LEGS 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. But Ragnarok is the English word. --Comanche cph 13:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph, we get it. You don't agree with consensus. However, since everybody else seems to agree with the name, since 2001, and nobody else seems to try and disrupt things with incorrect page moves without proper discussion like you have ([11] [12] [13] [14] with two different editors reverting it back), simply uncheck the Watch this page box, and get over it. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ragnarök is still not the English word. This has just been vandalised by a single Icelandic user. --Comanche cph 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, two different editors have already reverted you. After reading your talk page and seeing how many times you have been blocked for similar behavior, I really don't think you should be accusing others of vandalism. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation request

Would someone add a note on the pronunciation of the word? All this argument about alternate spellings has me confused about how I should say it.

—Tom W.M. 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose an answer after a year is better than no answer at all! The old Norse pronunciation would, ironically, be pretty much the same whether you spell it "Ragnarok" or "Ragnarök". the "-rok"-part is pronounced more or less like the modern English word "rock" (in British English). In modern Icelandic, however, putting the umlaut over the "o" turns the pronunciation into a rounded front vowel, somewhat similar to French "eu".

--Barend 10:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fate of the 'Fates'

I was just thinking...in the article, there's nothing mentioned about the 'Fates' and what happens to them during Ragnarok (as far as i can tell). It's my thought that they would survive. After all, aren't they above humans and gods alike? Or maybe not above but...apart from...Anyway, don't they also live...under (?) Yggdrasil? (I'm a bit hazy on that...the whole Yggdrasil visualisation is actually a bit confusing for me. But that's getting off topic). Well, it seems to be implied that they live around the Well of Urd (or whichever) and water the roots of the tree...and since the tree itself isn't actually damaged by the fire which aparently ends the battle, and the 3 Wells are under the Tree (?), what happens to them?

Anyone feel free to correct/explain anything. Actually, i'd really like that. I've only just got interested in Norse mythology so...i'm probably missing something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.158.182 (talk • contribs)

As far as I know (without rechecking both books from cover to cover), neither the Prose nor Poetic Edda specifically mentions what happens to the Norns after the endtime conflict of Ragnarok, but since Fate is a universal concept one can safely assume they survive, especially since the world and humanity are reborn along with certain of the gods after the fire burns out and the dust settles. The same with Yggdrasil, which is mentioned as "shaking and groaning" while Surtr the fire giant embarks on his rampage, but nothing about it being destroyed. After all, it would presumably still serve the purpose of connecting those worlds that still exist after the final battle. And yes, the Norns dwell in a single hall at the base of Yggdrasil in Asgard, near the Well of Urd which nourishes the tree. If the concept of Yggdrasil is hard to visualize then just picture the tree as a central vertical axis, around which are located the various worlds along the length of the trunk, with Asgard at the top (with the leaves spreading over it), Niflheim at the bottom and Midgard in the center. Cerdic 12:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I was just curious about it and thought about getting some clarification. You can read the Prose or Poetic Edda? Is there a website or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.158.182 (talk • contribs)

Both Eddas are in print and are readily available. Since English is my primary language I would recommend the Anthony Faulkes translation of the Prose Edda and the Carolyne Larrington translation of the Poetic Edda, although it never hurts to read other translations for the purpose of making comparisons. Both are also available online at the Sacred Texts site. Cerdic 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Awsome, thanks again. I'll try and read them when i have the time. Maybe get a copy or something.

Common Misconceptions?

Why is it a misconception that Ragnarok is a battle between good and evil? My reading of it is that it most certainly is, or at least its a battle of order versus chaos. To my mind, this is a matter of interpretation with no right or wrong answer so the section regarding this in the article should be deleted. Lars951 14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Something I would like to know is, where did the idea come from that only Balder and a few other gods will return after the final battle of Ragnarok? I can't find anywhere in the Voluspa that specifically says the other gods don't return; in fact it says that they will all meet afterwards on the Plains of Idavoll. To me, this is an obvious indication they will all return.

Gods are immortal by definition in every spiritual tradition on the planet; doesn't it seem strange that this one, single culture would develop in which gods are considered mortal just like humans? Isn't it more likely this is a modern misinterpretation of the story? And why would Balder etc. be able to come back from Hell, but not the other gods who died? It's not logical. It seems much more likely that Ragnarok is somewhat like the death and rebirth of the universe in another major Indo-European religion, Hinduism, wherein the gods all "die" back into the void (destroyed by fire along with everything else) and then are reborn intact just as they were before. The gods are immortal, because they represent eternal powers and forces of the cosmos. They always come back. It's humans and other mortal creatures who cannot return -- at least, not as the same individual they were before.

So, where did this idea come from that the Germanic gods, alone in all the history of the world, cannot return, except for a select few who, for some obscure reason, can? I find no evidence for such an assertion in the primary texts. 24.116.151.23 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a new generation of Norse gods surviving Ragnarok comes from Gylfaginning which specifically enumerates which gods will live on or be reborn. Cerdic 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Correctness?

In the first paragraph of the "Final battle" section of the article it says: Odin will then mount his horse Sleipnir, ride to the well of Mímir and consult him for guidance on his own and his people's behalf. While not really incorrect, I'd like to point out that in my main book of information source, "Gudar och Hjältar i Nordisk Mytologi" (Gods and Heroes in Norse Mythology), it says that Mímir's head won't answer Odin, something I think is an interesting piece of information. The second correctness check I'd like to do is the authenticity of the order in which the gods will be killed... According to all books that I have read, Odin will be the first one to fall (usually by being described as "riding straight down the throat of the Fenrir, with the jaws of the wolf closing around him"). Furthermore, Freyr is described as being the last of the Æsir's commanders to fall in all of the same books. Finally, I'd like to add to the information that according to my sources, Tyr is swallowed whole by Garmr, but stabs the wolf's heart from the inside... Though trivial, I consider this the #1 kill in all of Ragnarök in terms of style... Yeah.

If my sources are not valiable enough I'd like to apologize for bringing these matters up and generally wasting your time, but as most of this discussion board seems to revolve around whether the title of the article should be "Ragnarok", as is the most common way to type it in English, or "Ragnarök", being the original way of spelling it, I almost feel like this is going to be an appreciated subject of discussion. 81.228.148.16 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Gylfaginning nor Völuspá imply that Mímir's head doesn't respond and Gylfaginning distinctly implies that it does.[15][16] I don't think there are any other sources which bear on that. Gylfaginning describes Freyr's death first, then that of Týr, then that of Thor, then that of Odin, then that of the Wolf, then Loki and Heimdallr, then Surtr burns everything.[17] No details are offered of Garmr's manner of death though Völuspá says that Viðarr stabs the wolf with a sword to his heart. Haukur (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Usage of "ragnarok/ragnarokk/ragnarök)

The following three links shows how ragnarokk is used in modern Norwegian (the second link is somebody writing against Islam - beware of your eyes and your common sense when reading the article!): 1 2 3. In all three links ragnarok(k) is used as a synonym for "great destruction", "chaos" and "anarchy". The question is if mostly means "great destruction" rather than being a clean synonym for "chaos". I'd like some input here from other editors, but it seems to me that the term in Norwegian overlaps "chaos" rather than functioning as a synonym. Dylansmrjones (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Loki's Ship

I added a call for a citation to 85.197.239.222's edit of 6-APR-08; while I've heard this before, I've never seen a textual source, just UPG (good UPG, IMO, but UPG nonetheless). ---Mr. Nexx (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Twilight in Norse?

Out of curiosity, does anybody know the norse word for twilight? To compare it with Ragnarok, and explain how the two became mixed up to begin with. 69.220.2.188 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is a question of rök vs. røkkr or røkr, see the dictionary entries.[18] Haukur (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Twiligt = skumring, mørkning, dagen går på hæld (in Danish)--188.177.162.94 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)