Talk:Draugr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Another possible etymology

According to Eric V. Gordon's Introduction to Old Norse, the word draugr can also mean "log". The Völuspá ("Seer's Prophecy", a poem in the Elder Edda) includes a creation story in which the gods create the first humans from trees; Norse poetry also uses many tree-related kennings for people in general. Comparing a log (a fallen tree) to a corpse (a fallen body) makes sense, given those beliefs and practices; even though some unknown power animates a draugr, it usually remains in the grave like other fallen bodies. ISNorden 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe in that work it implied 'draugr' was a poetic term for a "stump" as in tree stump; a felled object, dead, but still remaining without much deterioration. This was probably simply the common teutonic practice of poetically refering to something as something seperate but of the same properties, in this case a tree stump being called a 'zombie'. Rather than having the actual meaning of "log" or felled tree. Nagelfar 07:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion from Draug talk page

I`m referring to the existing article of the norvegian creature Draug.

I suggest that the articles of Draug and Draugr be merged, because I think it makes little sense to keep them apart as separate creatures. In fact, the only thing parting them is the letter -r at the end of the word, suggesting a norse nominative case. The Draug without the -r, suggest a norse accusative, so the difference is that big.

Futher on: If the writer had referred solely to the icelandic creature, and not the norse, the form would have been Draugur, as in modern icelandic. That`s linguistics for you.

As older nynorsk literature differs between sea-draugs and land-draugs (Garborg), and the nynorsk stated that draug meant ghost all the way up to the newer lexica and wordbooks, it makes little sense to keep the two articles separated.

Eilev G. Myhren

I agree. Feel free to go ahead with a merge. Haukur 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Draug and Draugr articles should be merged. It is true that there is no difference between the two, aside from being the accusative versus nominative form of the name. LuskeLoke 07:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

I, being Icelandic and having read loads of stuff about draugar, don't agree with most of what is said here. Not all draugar are able to increase their size. I haven't read one draugasaga with a sizealtering draugur. Sorry. 85.220.97.48 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

There is no reason to have two articles on the subject. Consequently Draug should be merged into this article.--Berig 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objects, I will merge Draug into the folklore section of Draugr, today.--Berig 09:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is stated that the "Duergar"(Not deurgar) from the D&D game resembles draugar. How so? Duergar are just a different way of spelling dvergar (dwarfs in norwegian), the pronunciation is the same, they are dwarfs and not draugar. Anyhow, I don't really see any reason for it's inclusion here, right or wrong. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.186.73.7 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other translations of Hel-blár

If you check your Icelandic dictionaries, you will find 'blár' can be translated as blue or black. And 'hel' means Hell, not death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.195.187 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Concerning blár: Well, blár may have meant both "blue" and "black", but the use of common sense meant that people did not expect a medieval nobleman like Joar Blå to be bluish in colour. Rather it referred to the fact that he stood out with his unusual black hair. Since people are usually not bluish in colour, the translation "black" looks like the most natural interpretation, even if the draugar were supernatural.--Berig (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concerning hel: The name hel was used in referring to death, hence the modern Swedish expression i hjäl which means "to death".--Berig (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Over-zealous [Citation Needed]s

There are some weird Citation Needed tags in this article. In more than one place the article expresses doubt or uncertainty about a point, and we've got the CN tag in there, effectively asking for proof of information that's not there. The editor in question seems to be asking for every -- for example -- reference to a draugr in which the draugr's eyes are not mentioned, which is patently absurd. I'd suggest removing some of these redundant tags. 86.8.185.215 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite kosher

"Some draugar are immune to weapons. Only a hero has the strength and courage needed to stand up to so formidable an opponent. In legends the hero would often have to wrestle the draugr back to his grave, thereby defeating him, since weapons would do no good. A good example of this kind of fight is found in Hrómundar saga Gripssonar."
It is never suggested that Þráinn, the draugr in Hrómundr saga Gripssonar is immune to weapons - in fact, Þráinn complains that Hrómundr is not playing fair, and should put his (stolen) sword down. Only when Hrómundr has put down the weapon does the draugr agree to grapple with the hero. Hrómundr doesn't wrestle him back to his grave either - Þráinn is already in his grave. Needs some serious revision. Parallels have often been suggested between Hrómundr saga Gripssonar and Beowulf's battles against the Grendel-kin. This is perhaps where our author is getting the whole sword-immunity thing from. Fellow in the cellarage (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The the description at http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ghosts.shtml (to which a link is already provided) provides an extensive and scholarly discussion of draugar. It would be a useful starting place for improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellow in the cellarage (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that most of the "Traits" section has already been stolen verbatim from that very site. The thief has had the "grace" to convert that site's inline citations into proper wiki format, but not intelligently: he references "Kershaw p.68" several times as does Viking Answer Lady, but without ever actually giving the complete Kershaw citation (which is given in the Viking Answer Lady original). The section needs a rewrite from an expert in the subject. Placing template to that effect. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DraugStory.pdf Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DraugStory.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Joke?

Not sure if this is intended as a joke: 'In Norway "vampires" is translated as "Bloodsucker-draugar".'

The Norwegian translation of 'vampire' is 'vampyr'. Since there are a lot of "local" words in Norwegian dialects, I will accept the possibility that "bloodsucker-draugar" (would be 'blodsugerdrauger' in Norwegian) could be a rare term used in some dialects, but it is certainly not a common translation of vampire (this is the first time I have ever heard of it). Maitreya (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's from the Norwegian page, except there the context is given: Ola Raknes gave "blodsuger-draug" as a possible translation of vampire in his Nynorsk dictionary, apparently. A more appropriate wording would be that draug can mean simply "undead" in nynorsk. Riagu (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)