Talk:Knarr

Norse history and culture Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Knarr, not knaar

I strongly suggest using "knarr" as the main entry and dismiss the "knaar" spelling altogether. I'm a native Icelander and have read extensively about the Viking era ships. The three spellings "knörr", "knarr" and "knorr" are all valid, but I have never encountered "knaar" outside of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.208.66.52 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was I propose that this page be moved for the reason mentioned above--Tabun1015 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have to agree with knarr as the correct spelling. --Grimhelm 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with the reasoning provided. Chances have it, it was just a slip up. --Eye of the Mind 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious misspelling: [1] vs [2]--Victor falk 13:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User:130.208.66.52 is correct. I know enough about Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse to know that the original Old Norse spelling is knarr and not knár and not knår. Anthony Appleyard 11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concensus was Support. Anthony Appleyard 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Knarr - really?

So my issue is quite simple. Is it really Knarr, or is it really Knörr?

If it really is Knörr, and Knarr is simply a pronunciation thing by those who do not know how to correctly pronounce the ö, should we not put it right now that such spellings are allowed in Wiki?

One thing I notice from the previous discussion, is that the searches used to illustrate the numbers for and against also include the modern Knarr (a type of yacht) which may have inflated the numbers for Knarr. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that matters is how the preponderance of English-language reliable sources spell the word. It may be that in the English literature, knarr is indeed the way it is spelled (and all the given references are offline, so I cannot check myself). The relevant guideline is here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

small question of pronunciation

I've looked and I can't find a clear answer, so, is the 'k' silent or not? If anyone who answers would care to add that to the main article, 'twould be spiffing. Thanks 92.24.197.191 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OED says the k is silent, so I have spiffed up the article accordingly. Interestingly, the OED also uses "knorr" as the primary spelling, but acknowledges "knarr" as an alternative. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ably spiffed. I, in turn, am chuffed. Thank you. 92.29.22.179 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim

This bit "They were built with a length of about 16 m (54 ft), a beam of 5 m (15 ft), and a hull capable of carrying up to 24 tons." is based on one single ship, Skuldelev 1. There's simply not enough evidence to make such a claim about their size, as the article seems to suggest they were all of similar size! There's even no evidence that this was the most common size, since we only have two definite Knarr type ships, Skuldelev 1 and Hedeby 3 Knarr. The Hedeby ship was ~22 m long and ~6 m wide, therefore a much bigger ship than Skuldelev 1, with about double the capacity. 109.57.88.183 (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]