Talk:*Frijjō

Part of discussion from Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis copied here

I am happy to see an article for Frija as far as there are reliable sources. I see Frijjō is back which I am fine with but it should not be phrased as a historical or linguistic fact. There are still sections (such as on the day of the week) which mention the ON names as if they are not distinct references, or what the names have been considered to mean. If we had some significant historical evidence about the goddess or her origins in ancient times I would personally be ecstatic but the evidence does not seem to exist at all. We have some bracteates. Their interpretation is entirely conjectural. Look at the actual Mereseburg manuscript - actual manuscript unretouched and closeup of "frija" section - the alleged mention of "frija" is almost obliterated and looks like rrua. To be generous maybe frua. Maybe it said frija, doesn't look like it though. Whose authority are we taking that this does not read "frua" or "rrua"? Who retouched the copy of the manuscript we have on wikipedia which still shows "rrua"? In fact if you look at either version of the manuscript we do not have an accurate transcription of it on wikipedia. How reliable are 100 year old linguists and anthropologists? We know Frigg existed and that the Anglo-Saxons revered her. Where is Frija coming from? Obotlig (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this still hasn't gone anywhere. In retrospect I think there are fundamental questions about the reliability of the sources used for linguistic reconstructions. Not to offer WP:OR but much of research related to this topic seems scurrilous. I'm not clear how "Frigedæg" is supposed to be a reference to "Frigg" or "Frikko" given "frige" -> "frige" in modern Swedish. Also if the Merseburg incantations give this name as "frija" or "friia"... This article might bear deletion as User:Bloodofox has suggested before. This topic as far as it is any more than rubbish belongs in the Freyja and Frigg articles. The linguistics seem to be... garbage and strung together by WP:OR Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 00:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is awful by any standard and should simply be redirected to Frigg. Anything involving the discussion about whether or not Frigg and Freyja were once a single common Germanic deity can be handled at Frigg and Freyja origin hypothesis. The current article here appears to be nothing more than the tinkering of someone with poor footing in this area and a shows poor compliance with Wikipedia policy in general. The current Frigg article meanwhile needs a rewrite itself, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How this is handled in Frigg is pretty bad too. It gives a definite origin from a reconstructed word (?) then without explanation gives examples of words related to Freyja or ??. I hope we have someone with a solid understanding of the scholarship and sources to look at all this and bring some consistency and sense to it. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 04:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I intend to rewrite Frigg as I did Freyja (and nearly every other Norse goddess article at this point; to WP:GA standards). I'm unfortunately knee deep in other commitments at the moment. But I do look forward to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)