Zodiackillersite.com

Been some discussion about 'old Norse',so I wanted to start a thread about it. Just posting one little think I found interesting.Did Z learn this factoid from a newspaper Editor? Or,was he a newspaper Editor spilling factoids to his readers?

As stated elsewhere, Penn was right when he claimed that the writer didn't know quite what he was talking about.

Slá does not mean “kill” or “slay”. It is a word which can be traced back to the Indo-European root “slak”, and it means to hit, strike or throw.

The compound “slá í hel” can be translated as “to strike (someone) dead”, but on its own “slá” does not mean to kill, or slay. The same word survives in slightly different spellings in modern Danish, Swedish and Norwegian and is used in the same way today.

If I say “Check it out, I'm about to hit my brother”, most people would take that as meaning I'm going to punch him, throw something at him, or the like, not that I'm about to kill him. And if I say that I'm about to hit the road, hardly anyone would assume I was about to commit murder. The exact same applies to “slá”. It is a word which can be used in many contexts and compounds and – precisely therefore – it makes no sense whatsoever to translate it as “kill”. In modern Norwegian “slå plenen” means to mow the lawn. “Slå av en prat” means to shoot the breeze. And so forth.

The writer probably thought "slay" and "slá" means the same thing, but he was wrong. Slay and slaughter can both be traced back to the "slak" root, but that's general etymology. Old Norse for "to slaughter" is "slátra" and the most common term for "kill" is "drepa" (another word which derives from a root form which means to strike, hit, throw, smite, etc.).

The point is that nobody who actually knew his stuff would claim that "slá" means to kill. That would be equivalent to a Frenchman claiming that the English "to strike" means "tuer". It clearly doesn't when it stands alone.

From what I read "slay" come from the Dutch. Of course we use the term slay as to kill, which wouldn't surprise me as to the reasoning the S.L.A. came up that acronym.

That said, why would Zodiac write a letter about the S.L.A. and it's association with old Norse? To me, it's someone from the S.L.A. just reiterating a threat.

Tahoe27 wrote:From what I read "slay" come from the Dutch. Of course we use the term slay as to kill, which wouldn't surprise me as to the reasoning the S.L.A. came up that acronym.

That said, why would Zodiac write a letter about the S.L.A. and it's association with old Norse? To me, it's someone from the S.L.A. just reiterating a threat.

If you were right,I would hope they would know the correct definitions of words associated with themselves

Tahoe27 wrote:
That said, why would Zodiac write a letter about the S.L.A. and it's association with old Norse? To me, it's someone from the S.L.A. just reiterating a threat.

Why indeed. He goes from promoting himself, threatening, taunting - demanding that the people in the Bay Area wear Zodiac buttons...to this.

The idea that he wrote this because he was annoyed that the SLA were stealing his thunder doesn't make much sense, IMO. The letter is about THEM (and this ill-informed Old Norse nonsense), not about HIM.

morf13 wrote:

Tahoe27 wrote:From what I read "slay" come from the Dutch. Of course we use the term slay as to kill, which wouldn't surprise me as to the reasoning the S.L.A. came up that acronym.

That said, why would Zodiac write a letter about the S.L.A. and it's association with old Norse? To me, it's someone from the S.L.A. just reiterating a threat.

If you were right,I would hope they would know the correct definitions of words associated with themselves

A lot of people believe it though, and it's still being argued. The folks in the S.L.A. weren't all there...so to speak.

The Old Norse word "sla" is defined as "strike", but also as "smite". "Smite" means to "severely wound or kill". So I agree Zodiac was somewhat imprecise in saying "sla" is simply "kill", but I think he generally had the right idea.

IMO most people don't know any meanings or near meanings of any Norse words. So along with the probable use of runes, the Luger comment, etc., think maybe it tells us something about some of Z's interests and knowledge.

The SLA was getting a lot of headlines. Maybe Z didn't like that? Or he did not like their politics? Or actually thought it was a tip that could help police?

I just don't see the logic in Z deciding to write a helpful note to the police. Nor was it addressed to the police, for that matter. Furthermore, I don't see the logic in Z - being jealous of the SLA - attempting to regain territory by writing a letter which could only serve to boost THEIR notoriety, further diminishing his own.

My take on this is that we have to presuppose that Z turned into a different sort of correspondent if he did, in fact, produce either SLA or Red Phantom. He no longer sought to promote himself at all. He no longer taunted or threatened. He ceased to take credit for his own work, no longer signed his missives, etc. How do we explain this? Was he repenting? Somehow, that strikes me as plain ridiculous.

I don't know exactly why they thought it was him, but I have a hard time agreeing with them. Handwriting? Morrill? No comment. I've had enough of that – and of him.

I'd like to see something else - like a fourth piece of the Stine shirt which was enclosed, but not made public. Give me that and I'll be happy. If it's just handwriting - meh, as the kids say.

As far as I know these final three letters were confirmed after Morrill had retired, so you'd have to find a different document examiner to distrust

Chet Desmond wrote:As far as I know these final three letters were confirmed after Morrill had retired, so you'd have to find a different document examiner to distrust

Just distrust em all