Until about a tear ago I regarded the Kensington runestone (KRS) as a
pure hoax. After reading Dr. Richard Nielsen's article (> 70 pages)

http://www.byu.edu/sasslink/pdf/krs.pdf

about the KRS I am not convinced that it really is a hoax. Or rather,
if it is a late 19th century hoax, it is very sophisticated. If you
read the article, you'll understand what I mean.

But, the language of the KRS still looks kind of strange to me.
("...wi hade lager wed 2 skjar en dags rise norr fra dena sten wi war
ok fiske en dagh aptir wi kom..." - I can't imagine this is mid 14th
century Swedish, even though every single word may have been found in
contemporary documents.)

The "ok fiske" seems to be the same as modern Swedish "och fiskade"
(pron. ~ [o fiss`ka]), literary meaning "and caught fish". I can't
see why it is supposed to be interpreted as "to fish" ("att fiska" [o
fiss`ka] in MSwe).
It should be noted that many swedes tend to write "och fiska" when
they mean "att fiska" simply because "att" and "och" are pronunced
the same: [o]. Maybe this mistake was common among 19th century
swedes as well?

/Shöurur