I know you have done posts about the etymology of the name Sigyn, but what I was wondering was if you might know where the idea that she's a Valkyrie comes from? I see a lot of posts on here saying that her name means friend of victory and that means she was a badass Valkyrie serving Odin, which doesn't make any sense or seem likely to me. I honestly feel this way because of stanza 22 of Lokasenna, wherein Loki calls out Odin's treatment of humans in battle, which makes me question why he would marry a Valkyrie. I don't know, maybe someone else can answer this, if not. I'm going to write a post about my continued quest to find more fun books about Norse mythology and Loki especially, so I will most likely mention it in that.

I agree with you that the theory that Sigyn is a valkyrie is not correct. I'm not sure where it originated, but there are a few reasons that I am not surprised that people believe it.

Sigyn has been studied and debated for well over a hundred years, but nobody really proposed a good etymology for her name until 2017, and he did it in a very dense linguistics paper that's difficult for most people to understand. Especially in his second, more verbose paper on the subject, he also included a lot of comparative Indo-European mythology that most people rightly regard as speculative and outdated, and while it doesn't ruin his etymological argument, some non-linguists might object to it and find the author less credible because of it.

The element sig- or sigr- means 'victory' and is very common in Old Norse names in general, and occurs twice in Valkyrie names (Sigrdrífa and Sigrún). It's much more common in human names, but Sigrdrífa is an important enough figure to stand out and probably adds to the perception that sig- names are typical of valkyries.

We are now fairly certain that Sigyn's name is actually Sígyn with a long i, so it isn't 'victory' at all, and most likely originally meant something to do with pouring liquid, but again, this was only formally demonstrated in 2017 in a paper that few people have read. So the 'victory' interpretation prevails for now. It had a 100+ year head start, and it will take a long time for Ginevra's new etymology to reach people.

Since deity names usually have some connection to the deity's role, domain, or actions they perform in myth, it seemed for a long time like there was an unanswered question about what exactly Sigyn did that was victorious enough to be named that. Deciding that she must be a valkyrie is a neat solution to that question, because it would mean she doesn't have to acquire victory herself, but because valkyries pertain to granting or withholding victory in general it would make sense for a valkyrie to have that name.

The last thing that I can think of is that it could be an extension to a theory about why Loki is hanging around with the æsir to begin with. It's a common theory that Loki's mother Laufey was an áss and that's why he took her name as a matronymic rather than his jötunn father's. But it also makes some sense to propose that he married into the æsir. It's enough to suggest that Sigyn is an áss, but to say that she is a valkyrie ties up the previous two points and connects it to this one, because valkyries pertain to the æsir through Óðinn, even without really being æsir themselves.

So basically, it's a nice, neat theory that cleanly ties up a lot of loose ends, it's just that whenever you find one of those in the field of Norse mythology it's almost always wrong.

[Edit] I should also add that I understand that for some people this is really more of a gut feeling interpretation and that many people have found meaning in the 'victory-friend(fem.)' interpretation even while understanding that it isn't etymological, I'm really not trying to dismantle any of that, but just to clarify what's represented directly in medieval texts.

@avatar216

I wanted to address your points here but the post is rather long, so I will respond separately. The post is linked, though, so anyone can go back and read our responses.

What you are calling “misconceptions” are really different conceptions of Loki that are based in different people’s interpretations of Norse Mythology. If you insist we can’t know about Loki’s actual relationship to their sex and gender then you can’t logically also insist that your interpretation is correct and everyone else is simply misinterpreting it. While there are limitations in how we may be able to understand written records and the intentions behind them, we can look at the cultural context in which oral storytelling transitioned to written texts and make educated guesses about those things. Many queer Norse pagans have put in a considerable amount of effort into interpreting the Eddas, sagas, and historical and archaeological research in order to come to the conclusions they do about Loki and the like. There is a lot of evidence that Loki transgressed gender norms, regardless if there was a specific purpose for it or not. There is also evidence that Loki was capable of changing their sex in addition to shape shifting into many different forms. Whether or not you personally believe he is queer or genderfluid doesn’t make them wrong and you right.

Furthermore, terms like “hermaphrodite” aren’t technically more accurate because such language is outdated and problematic when it comes to talking about a person whose biological sex doesn’t fit into a binary. For genderqueer, genderfluid, transgender, non-binary, and/or intersex people who may find Loki relatable... whether or not Loki fit into modern definitions of these terms at the time the Eddas were written is irrelevant. What matters is that Loki doesn’t fit neatly into either the gender binary or sex binary. We know that how people defined themselves long ago and how they conceptualized their gods don’t always align with what we know today. That’s fine but if a character in a show who is queer and non-binary identifies with Loki because Loki’s experiences resonates with them, there is actually no harm in that and there is no “technical misconception” about it. It is just different from your point of view which is shaped by what information you have been exposed to, how you interpret that information, and how you personally connect with the gods. As I said, you don’t have to like Laurits as a character but if your criticism boils down to “I don’t like that he makes people think Loki is genderfluid or queer” then that’s an issue.

Re: racist dog whistles, my point is that the show is not aiming to tell a white supremacist narrative. The point is to tell a story that is relatable to Norwegian culture, and that story is impacted by their Norwegian and Danish team. The terminology and symbols they use throughout the show are not meant to be dog whistles that only white supremacists / neo-nazi pagans can understand. The show instead uses its retelling of Norse Mythology in a modern setting to be critical of things like fascism, capitalism, and ecological destruction.

Your interpretations of Loki are based on your interpretations of the Eddas, which is fine but there are other interpretations of Loki and Norse Myths. Snorri Sturluson compiled some of these stories from oral tradition during a Christianizing era in Iceland. They’re a great resource that give us a good idea of what people generally believed. However, different interpretations exist and that’s okay too. I am well aware and I have discussed in detail in the past that Æsir and Jotnar share ancestry and that many figures including Loki are both. You do not have to condescend to me about Loki being caught up between two worlds, because it stems from my own interpretation of Loki’s interactions with both Æsir and Jotnar based on his relationship with key figures and his offspring. It’s fine if you do not interpret Loki the same way. I am not not acknowledging that most of our understanding of Norse Mythology is speculative or interpretive. In fact, I’m trying to argue that it is, and different media aren’t necessarily trying to be 100% faithful to “source material.” That being said, I also don’t think it’s fair to criticize a character for basically being genderfluid just because it’s an interpretation of Loki you don’t think is “correct.” That’s mostly where I’m... 😬😬😬, because that’s not fair to the queer people who do identify with Loki this way. You are not more or less correct than they are and it’s not a “misconception” for them to conceptualize Loki this way. It’s just different.

when did you start watching this show galavant and because i want know to and because the show and this ship are my life now

!!! I followed the show when it was first released, and watched it through to the end! :3 It is a great show, isn’t it? The musical element is so cool.