Hi Sjuler,
Thanks for your interesting comments!
In modern Norwegian too, there is quite a confusion
between "å" and "og", which is how we write the two words:
"å" = att,
"og" = och.
English: "å" = to, "og" = and.
In a sentence: "we went out to fish"; "we went out and fished".

In Norwegian too, "å" and "og" are pronounced in exactly the same way!
That is why people have such a hard time keeping them apart.
In Icelandic the corresponding words are "að" and "og".
In Old Norse it was "at" and "ok".

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, sjuler@... wrote:
> 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

Hmm, it seems an awful lot to read. But I can certaily take a look.

>
> 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.)

That is also the reason why such explanations have been so
strongly rejected by the Scandinavian language experts!
(the runic research group connected with the "Bryggen Museum"
in Bergen showed such a reaction to the topic just a few years ago)


> 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"
Icelandic:
ég fiskaði
þú fiskaðir
hann fiskaði
við fiskaðum
þið fiskaðuð
þeir fiskaðu.

Note that "we were fishing" in its praeteritum indicative form
requires the -um ending. But it is absent on the Kensington rune
stone.

Xigung

> 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