Scandinavian Viking-Age runic epigraphy is according to Sawyer (2000, 8) always rendered in Old Scandinavian. However, there remains a tiny residue of 11th–12th c. epigraphs, which are reminiscent of texts in a natural language, yet not amenable to a Scandinavian (or Latin) reading and hence usually considered to be magical, encrypted, or nonsensical. Eliasson (2007, 2010) analyzed one ‘incomprehensible’ runic monument, the Danish Sørup Stone (Fyn 47). Unable to find cogent evidence for the disparate surmises just mentioned, he tested the alternative hypothesis that Fyn 47 might be phrased in an as yet unidentified language. Attempts at matching Fyn 47 structurally/lexically to North and West European languages were generally unsuccessful. Merely with regard to Basque (Bq.), a set of systematic parallels was found. This paper goes beyond those two studies in examining in addition parts of the similarly ‘incomprehensible’ inscription of Øster Marie Stone 6 (Bh 56), while also drawing on the Suldrup grave-slab (NJy 54) and three non-epigraphic inscriptions from Bornholm, Bergen and Trondheim. Several properties of these inscriptions suggest that they might be written in the same language. Corresponding to Bq. structural, lexical and onomastic elements, we find (∆ = unreadable rune; certain transliterations slightly simplified): ‑k (erg.), ‑k (pl.), ‑i/‑li (dat.; allomorph ‑li predating change of intervocalic l > r), ‑u-/-o– (proximal suffix ‑o-), s– (3rd pers. subj. past tense z- in verbs) ˌss / ƨs / þþ (pre-dative marker –ts– in verbs; orthographic variation deriving from lack of affricate symbols in runic writing), ‑n (past tense), ‑to (adverbializer), dem. pron. hla (hura ‘that’), verb ion– (io ‘beat’), kinship terms snr (senar ‘husband’), osu[a] (osaba ‘uncle’), iseya (izeba ‘aunt’, or as name *Izeba), cognomens itcsihki / itgi..∆iki (modern Etcheheguy, etc.; again difficulty in rendering an affricate), ngus– (abbr. for Nagusi), and others. As for epigraphic abbreviatory practice, an intriguing answer emerges for the long-standing riddle of the sequences ku·i.. | nik (Bh 56) / k:nik: (NJy 54) / kui:n∆∆ (N-34071; cf. Hagland n.d.), attached to pictures of two processional crosses and to the image of a man. Recalling the INRI-formula, *ku:i:nik appears to be an abbreviation for Gure Jauna, Nazareteko Jesu Kristo ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ from Nazareth’, on N-34071 even in the dative case. Whereas it has not been possible to substantiate other explanations of Fyn 47 and Bh 56, the comparison to Bq. yields — with provisos for customary difficulties in runic decipherment — a reasonably cohesive inscription-internal account, which is supported by cross-inscriptional parallels.