4026 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

What?!
it simply means "haar heildronk bieden".


voor haar eigen heil/ behoud


... heil/ behoud!

Good, so nothing HOLY, again.

It has to do with PRAISE, honouring someone or BE SAFE.

Not sit on your knees and say "Allahu Akbar" or something.

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

LOL
a Frisian would never use HULDE in that context because it means "huilde" (cried, wept)

Yeah, but this is not real Frisian now, is it? IT's OLD Frisian:

Huilen = to weep

weep, wai-n-ia 1 und häufiger?, wei-n-ia 3, wê-n-ia 3, wÐp-a 5

http://www.koeblerge...h/ne-afries.pdf

Edited by Abramelin, 19 May 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Otharus]

As for archaeological evidence:

If the manuscript is authentic, it can still be Medieval (partly) fiction.

In any case it offers great insights in language and psychology.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 19 May 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Good, so nothing HOLY, again.

Use your brain Abe.

HEIL-IG

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Use your brain Abe.

HEIL-IG

Use the links I posted, and try to find "heilig" where they explain "heil" or visa versa.


If it was that obvious one of the 4 linguistics they used the works of would have come up with the same explanation as you do.

I assume these guys did use their brains, lol.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 19 May 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

As for archaeological evidence:

If the manuscript is authentic, it can still be Medieval (partly) fiction.

In any case it offers great insights in language and psychology.

LOL, but then we can read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as well instead.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 19 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Use the links I posted, and try to find "heilig" where they explain "heil" or visa versa.

If your links don't explain it, they are crap.
It is too obvious.
I can't believe that you really don't see it.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 19 May 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

LOL, but then we can read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as well instead.

Well, if you think 20th century fiction is just as interesting as 13th century (or older) fiction...

you obviously don't share my interest in the evolution of consciousness.

Edited by Otharus, 19 May 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Well, if you think 20th century fiction is just as interesting as 13th century (or older) fiction...

You forget Tolkien used even older (Germanic, Celtic, Nordic) myths and legends.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

If your links don't explain it, they are crap.
It is too obvious.
I can't believe that you really don't see it.

It's connecting apples and melons: both are round.

You seriously think that no linguist would see the similarity between HEIL and HEILIG and not mention it?

Apparently they had perfectly sane reasons not to make a connection between these words.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 19 May 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Leonardo]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

There is no good evidence against the manuscript's authenticity.
So if it would indeed be a 13th century copy (or a copy there-of), it is most significant.
If it was fake (19th century concoction) this should be really easy to prove.
That there still is no good proof for that, says enough.
And that people did not want to accept it as authentic is understandable, because it could create cultural (political) instability and chaos.
The book has anarchistic (and surely anti-religious!) elements.
That explains why the discussion has been highly emotional (and therefore irrational) at times.

Well, whether the manuscript is authentic can be validated by the change in the use of language over the timeframe within which it was allegedly written. For example, the book alleges to relate narratives extending from somewhere before 4,000 ybp to approx 1000 ybp, does it not? Then the change in the use of language and syntax over the period of the copied (original?) works should be relatively simple to ascertain - if it is, in fact, a copy (as alleged) of an ancient work.

Or is it thought to be a later re-working of more ancient tales?

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 19 May 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

You seriously think that no linguist would see the similarity between HEIL and HEILIG and not mention it?

You have succeeded again in wasting some of my valuable time.

M. Philippa e.a. (2003-2009) Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands

heilig bn. ‘gewijd; volmaakt; onaantastbaar’
[...]
Afleiding van de wortel van → heel of → heil.

http://www.etymologi...refwoord/heilig

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 19 May 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

You forget Tolkien used even older (Germanic, Celtic, Nordic) myths and legends.

I hardly ever forget anything. That is one of my handicaps.

If 20th century fiction used old myths and legends, imagine what 13th century (or older) fiction would have used!

[Otharus]

Leonardo, on 19 May 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

For example, the book alleges to relate narratives extending from somewhere before 4,000 ybp to approx 1000 ybp, does it not?

The texts of the OLB (including those about the oldest times) were (supposedly) collected in the 6th century BCE and later (ca. 300 BCE and ca. year zero).

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I hardly ever forget anything. That is one of my handicaps.

If 20th century fiction used old myths and legends, imagine what 13th century (or older) fiction would have used!

I guess they used the same myths. I am talking myths and legends from around the 8th to the 10th century.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 19 May 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

You have succeeded again in wasting some of my valuable time.

M. Philippa e.a. (2003-2009) Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands

heilig bn. ‘gewijd; volmaakt; onaantastbaar’
[...]
Afleiding van de wortel van → heel of → heil.

http://www.etymologi...refwoord/heilig

Yeah, you're right. Maybe I should start thinking about glasses.

Time for something funny: