The names appear in Dalska - according to Bureus in 1599 - as (the
Old Icelandic equivalent to the left):

fé - fir
úrr - ur
þurs -dors
áss -()
reið - re
kaun - kan
hagl - hagal
nauðr - nådh
íss - is
ár - ar
sól - sol
týr - tir
bjarkan - birke
maðr - madhär
lögr - lagh
ýr - ()

where () indicates that there's no Dalska form of the Old Icelandic
equivalent.
Note that Bureus wrote the rune names in another order (in Latin
order, of course).
There should be no doubt that many of these these names existed in
Dalska for a long time after 1599; remember that the use of runes
ended in early 20th century in Dalarna.
According to Konrad, we know how icelanders in the same period from
1599 an further on pronounced the name of the runes they wrote with...

/Annlioåtär




--- In norse_course@..., "konrad_oddsson" <konrad_oddsson@...>
wrote:

> Codex Leidensis gives the names of the runes in both runes and

Latin

> letters. The passage containing the names of the runes is

considered

> to be a copy of an older manuscript dating from the 9th or early

10th

> century. The names of the runes appear as follows:
>
> féu, úrR, þhurs, aus, ræiþu, kaun, hagal, nauþR, ís, ár, sólu, TíuR,
> biarkan, mannR, laugR, ír
>
> "Aus" in this manuscript has been variously interpreted. "LaugR"

has

> also provoked more than one reading. "Ír" should probably be "íuR".
>
> The 16-stave fuþark appears in Norway towards the end of the 9th
> century, replacing various mixed transitional alphabets based in
> part on the older 24-stave fuþark. As we are studying Old Norse,
> which is the parent tongue to Icelandic, Faroese, and to a certain
> extent Norwegian, the names of these runes and their pronounciation
> should be of interest to us in a more westerly form - that is to

say,

> in the tongue Ari Þorgilsson called "Norroena".
>
> How were these words pronounced between 800-870 in Norway and

amongst

> the first families to settle the Faroes and Iceland? Norway was

quite

> isolated at the time the western settlements began and scholars

have

> long been of the opinion that the oldest dialects of Scandinavian
> were at this times spoken in various parts of Norway - dialects

that

> were to become Icelandic and Faroese. Here is how some of the first
> Icelanders and Faroe Islanders probably pronounced these words from
> Codex Leidensis:
>
> Féh(u) - final "h" is not believed to have disappeared yet; also,

at

> least some of the early settlers probably still had "u" in

the

> nom. and accus. sg. of the few neuter words of this type;

some

> may also have said "féh".
> ÚrR - this word would have been pronounced as written.
> Þurs - also as written; the extra "h" of the codex is not west

norse.

> ÁsR - this word became "áss" in classical Icelandic in accordance w/
> the rules governing the handful of very minor changes that
> produced the classical language of Snorri Sturluson and other
> classical writers; words like "áss" and "sonr" were

originally

> u-stems and accus. pl. -u still occurs in classical sources.
> Reiðu - some would say "reiðR"; some whould also say that "ei" was
> pronounced like Gotlandic "ai" or German "ei" in "mein" -

I´ll

> leave this one to the phonologists at this time.
> Kaun - as written; "au" was NOT pronounced like "ou" in English

house

> but rather like "a" plus "u" (still heard in a few dialects

in

> Norway and closer to Icelandic "au" than many people realize.
> Hagl - there may have been those that still said "hagal",

but "hagl"

> occurs in some of the oldest poetry of an exact metric type.
> NauðR - as written; the word is "nauð" in Icelandic.
> ÍsR - as written; the Codex gives "ís", but Norse had "íss" in the
> classical language; this word could also be declined weak.
> Ár - as written, but long "a" instead of the nasal in "ás-".
> Sólu - as written; the oldest spoken dialects of Norse still had "u"
> in the nom. sg. of certain fem. nouns; the classical language
> has "sól" in the nom. but all other forms the same.
> TíuR - as written and one syllable only; "ý" was still in the

process

> of being formed as evidenced by assonance in old poems; the
> sound represented by "ý" is only a minor change from "íu", in
> which the "u" was close but not the same as

German/English "w"

> Biarkan - as written; "j" is written and printed for "i" in most of
> the printed editions of old texts in this position as well as
> in the Icelandic of today - it helps to show that "biarkan"
> has two syllables instead of three.
> MannR - as written; the "ð" of the classical language was not yet in
> control; almost all mainland Scandinavian dialects

have "mann"

> in the nominitive, but the classical language has "maðr" by
> retaining the nom. sg. ending in conservative fashion - this
> is in keeping with the tongue´s conservative nature; the word
> for "man" has one of the most complicated histories of any
> common Germanic noun and can be found as both weak and

strong.

> LagR - as written for the oldest Norse dialects of the settlement

era

> (the "u"-mutated form being the product of a sound change

that

> was probably already under way) - this change, however, is

yet

> a topic of debate and undecided; one thing, however, is for
> certain: "u"-mutation of "a" by retained "u" occured during
> the "viking"-age"(roughly 800-1066) and in those dialects of
> Scandinavian which were the most conservative as evidenced by
> retained "u" in many postions where it was otherwise lost.
> ÍuR - as written; the same rule applies here as to "tíuR" above;

the

> classical form is "ýr".
>
> Here are the forms of these words in the classical written language
> of the 12th and 13th centuries: fé, úrr, þurs, áss, reið, kaun,

hagl,

> nauðr, íss, ár, sól, týr, bjarkan, maðr, lögr, ýr. As all of these
> words occur with little change in modern Icelandic - the inflections
> are almost identical - and as the classical forms are little changed
> from those of the early "viking"-age, we can safely assume that both
> are very conservative.
>
> While this little post leaves volumes unspoken about the many and
> diverse matters that it touches on, I nonetheless hope that it will
> prove interesting to some of its readers. Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Konrad.