
you'd think the Norse words for "black" and "pool" would show up a fair amount on a map of Scandinavia.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:35, archived)

I never got round to committing the name of every Scandinavian settlement to memory.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:39, archived)

but the word "dublin" doesn't sound Norse at all. "dub" doesn't sound like any of the words for murky, swampy, dull, dark, black or anything else in my Norwegian, Icelandic or Swedish dictionaries, and neither does Pool. And Icelandic is only 4% different from the Old Norse spoken by Vikings (according to lexicostatistics or whatever) so I just want to see a little bit of evidence contrary to my own opinion that Dublin is the Irish word for "town full of trollops."
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:42, archived)

so fuck knows how the poor Vikings got roped in as an explanation for such a shit name.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:45, archived)

( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:55, archived)

but that it is a Viking settlement. I read in a book that it was founded by Vikings and called "Dubh Linn" meaning Black Pool and I guess I assumed they would have named it in their own language, granted it doesn't sound very Norse but place names often seem to take on a mind of their own.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:48, archived)

not only is it not a Viking name, it's not a Viking settlement either. Yes, there was a Norse encampment there, but it is neither the origin of the town or of the name. History fail. You should know better, MGT.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:54, archived)

that's a lie, is it?*
Yeah, I should know better, fancy getting my facts about European mediaeval history by reading a book on the subject. Silly me.
*EDIT: and
"the town was established in about 841[7] by the Norse. ...
Dublin was ruled by the Norse for most of the time between 841 and 999, when it was sacked by Brian Boru, the King of Cashel.[8] Although Dublin still had a Norse king after the Battle of Clontarf in 1014, Norse influence waned under a growing Celtic supremacy until the conquest of Ireland which was launched from Britain in 1169-1172."
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 17:55, archived)

that wouldn't make any sense. Or we could look at this sentence from wiki... "It is now thought that the Viking settlement was preceded by a Christian ecclesiastical settlement known as Duiblinn..." just to get a second opinion on whatever book it is you're reading, that's all I'm saying.
Is it a book all about Dublin?
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 18:01, archived)

it only mentions Dublin as an aside. I don't know why you have to be such an arse about it, I just thought it was interesting. Fucking hell. It's like I mortally offended you or something.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 18:06, archived)

but something so obviously false as your original statement, coming from someone as academically clued-up as you, stuck in my craw. Consider it a compliment, if you like.
( , Thu 30 Sep 2010, 18:10, archived)