Re: CHAT of oghams & runes (was Celtic alphabet? )

At 3:08 pm -0400 10/4/02, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>Ray wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>The arguments put forward to support the theory are, in brief:
>>1. Both scripts were used for magical purposes as well as just writing.
>>2. The Old Germanic runes were divided into four 'rows of eight' (Êttir);
>
>That should be three _Êttir_ - there were only 24 runes!
Yes, sorry - it should be three (the Old English did add a 4th, but that
was much later).   The first symbol when I wrote the email was the a-e
ligature (Old English 'ash'), not the upper case E with a hat on it!
{sigh}

>>the letters of the oghamic script were similarly divided into four
>>'families' (aiccme) [tho in the case of the oghams each 'family' was
>>composed of five members, not eight]*.
>
>Is four _aiccme_ correct, or should it be three?
Checking again, Arntz remarked on _three_ aiccme of consonants.  But in
fact, the five vowels form another aiccme - so there are four in the
oghamic script.

Ray.

======================
   XRICTOC ANESTH
======================