Talk:Auðumbla

Meaningless Google test

As a point of curiosity here are the results of a Google test for the variant spellings and ASCII-renderings of Auðumbla's name. I searched for pages in English only.

• Auðumbla 11
• Auðumla 52
• Auðhumbla 6
• Auðhumla 102
• - - -
• Audumbla 287
• Audumla 840
• Audhumbla 1210
• Audhumla 14.200
• Authumbla 0 (6 in other languages)
• Authumla 28
• Authhumbla 4
• Authhumla 4
• Audhhumbla 1
• Audhhumla 0 (6 in other languages)

I don't think this is important or even very meaningful. Each of the four Old Norse spellings is as correct as the others. And each of the ASCII renderings is as correct as the others.

English translations are somewhat more relevant. Young uses "Auðhumla", Brodeur uses "Audumla", Faulkes uses "Audhumla", Anderson uses "Audhumbla".

I picked "Auðumbla" as the article title because that's what Lexicon Poeticum does. Since one form is really as good as the next I guess I could defer to Young and the most common Internet usage and go for "Auðhumla". - Haukurth 21:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Britannica gets this one wrong (as it is wont with Norse names). It gives three variants: "Audhumia, Audhambla, Audhumla". Only the last one, I fear, is correct. - Haukurth 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Swedish variant

In American-accented english, the letter I in "bird" and "girl" is silent. Something that's at least more universal across native English-speaking nations should be sued for the English entry. Unfortunately, I can't really add one myself - as far as I know, an O with umlaut is silent... 207.228.62.201 (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Auðumbla/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A decent amount of information, an image and references. Good start. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"it is generally accepted by scholars as an authentic part of Norse mythos and not dismissed as an invention of Snorri Sturluson"

one has to consider in a spiritual system that is still mainly by oral tradition, with no centralizing forces & mass-reproduction/invention of doctrine, that something "newly invented" by any teller is not necessarily "inauthentic", in fact likely based on previous tales at least somewhat, no matter how seemingly outlandishly-tangent from previous tales, the strength of an oral tradition is great flexibility to constantly evolving situations and particular locations & people, that strength is highly dependent on the skill & wisdom of the tellers & keepers, often far more trust is extended to them than in centralized-religion, not that centralized-religion isn't also ultimately dependent on this very same skill-set of individual talent & flexibility, tailored with any particular location & group... based on such principle one would have to consider anything Snorri Sturluson says as at least "authentic" by note of his reasonable place & status as a teller & keeper, otherwise if not so, to toss most or all of it as "inauthentic", yet still clearly as of historical-notation to some specific place & circumstances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.43.46 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)