4027 replies to this topic

[The Puzzler]

I wonder if Frya's name is really related to 'peace', which in this context, would equal freedom.

go-d-fre-th-o

10, afries., st. M. (u): nhd. Gottesfriede, allgemeiner Friede; ne.

divine peace (N.); Q.: H, R; I.: Lüs. lat. põx deÆ; E.: s. go-d, fre-th-o; L.: Hh 35a,

Rh 779b

fre-th-o

200 und häufiger?, fre-th-e (2), fer-d (2), afries., st. M. (u): nhd. Friede,

Schutz, Buße für Friedensbruch, Besitzrecht, Gerichtssprengel; ne. peace (N.),

protection, fine (N.) for violaton, right (N.), district (N.); ÜG.: lat. põx K 2, K 13,

L 13, K 9, L 12, K 11, K 12, L 19, L 20; Vw.: s. õ-, dÆk-, fel-d-, go-d-, her-e-, hof-,

hð-s-, jeld-e-, liæd-, merk-ad-, pÆl-, plæch-, râ-f-, Rðm-, sin-u-th-, skip-, sæn-e-,

strÆ-d-, thing-, un-, warf-, ze-r-k-, -ba-n-n, -bre-k-er, -ê-th, -fest, -lâ-s, -lâ-s-hê-d,

*-lik, -lik-hê-d, *-man-n, -pan-n-ing, -skip; Hw.: vgl. got. *friþus, an. friOEr, ae. friþ,

friþu, anfrk. fritho, as. frithu*, ahd. fridu; Q.: R, B, E, F, H, S, W, Jur, K 2, K 13,

L 13, K 9, L 12, K 11, K 12, L 19, L 20, AA 209; E.: germ. *friþu-, *friþuz, st.

M. (u), Liebe, Freundschaft, Friede; s. idg. *prõi-, *prýi-, *prÂ-, V., Adj., gern

haben, schonen, lieben, friedlich, froh, Pokorny 844; W.: nfries. freed, fre; W.:

saterl. fre; L.: Hh 31b, Rh 760a, AA 209
http://www.koeblerge...ch/afries-F.pdf

[The Puzzler]

Abramelin, on 14 October 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

The only reason I often said we already discussed this and that is, that sometimes people appear to have forgotten..... they actually discussed it. Now it is not bad to rekindle an old discussion, but at least refer to what has been discussed before.

For those who dropped in late, there is a way of knowing if something has been discussed before (in the archived part -1- of this thread), or even mentioned, and that is what I posted for 'The Mule' a couple of days ago

Google: "keyword(s)" "archived" "oera linda" "unexplained mysteries". All these at same time, and WITH quotation marks.

I just think it's better to first start reading what went on before (on some subtopic), and then come with new ideas and insights and finds.

.

and where is The Mule now? I see it as people thinking they have missed the conversation and don't feel like they can add anything, once it's been pointed out it's already been discussed. But anyone is free to do that of course.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, here it is:


Ok, a summary of my reasons why I think the OLB is not what it is supposed to be, an authentic MS of ancient European history.

- Absense of archeological proof. No 'citadels', no other examples of the OLB script, or no truely ancient text that tells about an ancient European/Nordic empire (ranging from Spain to the Baltic).

_ Not a single word about for example a megalithic structure like Stonehenge, though it was well known by the ancient Romans and Greeks (and Stonehenge is located in Britain, the 'penal colony' of the Fryan Empire). Not a single word about the construction of any Western European megalithic structure for that matter, though they were still being built long after 2194 BC. All we hear about is those 'citadels' - that must have been all over Europe, but that no one has found any archeological proof of.

- The OLB was in the possession of a man who wanted his family history to look greater than life.

- This same man owned books of which we can almost read literal quotes from in the OLB (Volney's "The Ruines" for instance - check my OLB blog in my signature), plus books about ancient scripts, Old Frisian language, and books about Greek and Roman legends and myths, mythology in general, ship-building, and so on.

- This same man had written texts before that showed similar linguistic errors, and similar (philosophical) ideas as we can find in the OLB.

- Contradictory testimonies of witnesses. One (by a head teacher called "Sipkens") even said this man - decades before the OLB was published - showed him an 'ancient' document of his family history, and even read and recited from it, to this man Sipkens. Later on he claimed to Ottema and Verwijs he was not able to read it, and that he needed their help...

- One testimony - from his grandson - said that in the evening several learned men came around in Enkhuizen, discussed what this guy, Over de Linden , had fabricated during the days before, and that they "all roared with laughter".

- Linguistics: linguists then and now say the language used in the OLB can not be really ancient: it contains modernisms, anachronisms (like a Godfreyath the Sea-kening, the Wit-kening = Godfried the Seaking/Viking/ BEDRVM = bedroom, a word introduced during Shakespearian times and not seen before). And they say the language is simply TOO MODERN.

- It has been said many times in this thread that linguistics is not an exact science, meaning: we all can have a shot at it. Heh, I agree, so why use it to prove the OLB? It won't prove anything. It's mere play with words.

- Old English (Willibrords language) is said to be VERY similar to Old Frisian... but it's not anything like  the OLB language. So... the OLB language resembled Frisian medieval law texts thousands of years ago, then centuries later that language must've resembled Old English texts from thousands of years later, and then, in 1256 AD it magically changed back to what it was thousands of years before.

- About those Vikings: the OLB mentiones 'witkings' or 'witkenings', like the Vikings were known in south-eastern France and north-eastern Spain: Vitkings. Also a medieval Frisian legend telling us about the Viths, according to that legend another word for Jutes.. Their king, their VIKING king would no doubt have been called Vith-kening.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 14 October 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[Van Gorp]

Otharus, on 14 October 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Can you add the sources of those fragments please, VG?

Sure, passe partout when it comes to crazy etymologies, for one reason or another he seems to have his own ideas for many topics handled here.
:-) Schrieckius (Adriaen Van Scrieck dus)

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Titlepage:




The book is written mostly in Dutch but with many Latin references/texts what makes it a bit difficult to digest it all at a short time.

Though easier to read than with Becanus' works -> those are entirely in Latin because in his eyes the topic is relevant for a big part of world history and wanted to address the public accordingly in the than used scholar language.

So maybe a short description of some recent researchers to have an understanding about his views.
.




So in short:

Schrieckius (as with Becanus) had done some deep historical/linguistical studies and holding high positions in daily live -> they took a risk concerning credibility.
Nevertheless, was non-stopable in proclaiming his views about

• the 'lies' in Greek history and myths
  
• the misunderstood history of the Romans (even by their own). Romulus and Remus story one of them :-)
  
• downplaying the historical roots of other languages/cultures which they called barbaric

Also the reduction of almost all what is original in language to the Hebrew line, is not in line with his research results.

Practically independent of Hebrew/Greek/Latin, the Dietsch (Tuytsch, Teuts) language has his own rich history and need to be studied accordingly as going further in time than Greek/Latin.

This is by many now approached as naïve.  I think that can be pretty naïve also :-)

[Abramelin]

Dutch Israelism is the belief the Dutch people, or people of the Netherlands, particularly the Frisians of the province Friesland, descend from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

Early Sources

Adriaan van der Schrieck (1560–1621) a Flemish language researcher in 1614 first made this identification:

    "...the Netherlanders with the Gauls and Germans together in the earliest times were called: Celts, who are come out of the Hebrews."

http://en.wikipedia....Dutch_Israelism

Van Gorp, weren't you the one saying you didn't like all those supposed (linguistic) connections between our low lands and ancient Israel or the Hebrews?

What made you change you mind?"

A convenient quote?

[Abramelin]

Van Gorp, on 14 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Practically independent of Hebrew/Greek/Latin, the Dietsch (Tuytsch, Teuts) language has his own rich history and need to be studied accordingly as going further in time than Greek/Latin.

This is by many now approached as naïve.  I think that can be pretty naïve also :-)

Then you should show us ancient sources at least as old as Roman or Greek sources that prove your point.

They have found Latin and Greek manuscripts/papyrusses dating to 2000 or more BP

You have nothing to show us that's that old.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 14 October 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 14 October 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Ok, a summary of my reasons why I think the OLB is not what it is supposed to be, an authentic MS of ancient European history.

Thank you for the list, Abe.

Can you point out the (max. 3) arguments that are most convincing in your opinion?

I will focus on commenting to them for now.

[Otharus]

Van Gorp, on 14 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

So maybe a short description of some recent researchers...

That looks like an interesting source too.
Can you name the title, author and year of publication?

[Van Gorp]

Otharus, on 14 October 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

That looks like an interesting source too.
Can you name the title, author and year of publication?

Hi Otharus,

From "Kelten En De Nederlanden Van Prehistorie Tot Heden", door Lauran Toorians.
Published by Peeters, Bondgenoten Laan 153, Leuven.  

The version on google ebooks I googled on for the quote is not complete for all pages.  
Maybe a full version is available on others places or even at the bookshop in Bondgenotenlaan?  I don't know, the shop is the one with the low windows.


Abe,
You googled also on this one I think.

For you're previous posts: I don't feel I have to show you anything if you don't mind (and if you mind, i will not mind :-).  
It's not that I am on a queste, so if you have your doubts: leave it as it is, else people can search further at own will.

I'm not asking you to show evidence of papyrus that is said to be from 2000 BC.  That would be a joke.  Because you have none.
About showing sources about a Diets origin older then Greek/Latin: written accounts are a relative recent phenomenon in the longer history and not wide spread.
It is known that our and other's early forefathers had mainly other things to do then writing stuff down, except when they felt the need for  :-)
Secondly it is generally known that in Greek/Roman/Catholic time, original scriptures that did exist but contradicted the Catholic and dominating world view, were burned/corrupted on large scale.
You take Caesar's account for real? Then take OLB also, cuz you have no bigger proof for Caesar's/Tacitus/... accounts then authority of centuries of Catholic feeding.  And that you take for granted?

Concerning supposed (linguistic) connections between our low lands and ancient Israel or the Hebrews.  My idea: there are connections (like there are connections with practically all languages), but not in line.
Meaning, Hebrew does not need to be necessarely predating and being the motherlanguage of Diets.  In fact Schrieck is rather moderate on this (compared to others), he does not really places Diets before Hebrew.  I think the only reason why he didn't is the time where his (and Becanus' contemporaries) work is published: better not challenge Catholic/Hebrew predominating world view.  And that's just my personal view.

It is rather curious that we can explain Latin/Hebrew words with our own language better than they can with theirs.
He points to the common ground (not necessarely coming from), and those Latin/Greek/Hebrew words seem to have a meaning in Dietsch unknown to many.

[NO-ID-EA]

Abramelin, on 13 October 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

It's always good to wander off to other threads:

(from Caesar's  The Bello Gallico, Book 6) :


(14.1)--The Druids do not go to war, nor pay tribute together with the rest; they have an exemption from military service and a dispensation in all matters.

(14.2) Induced by such great advantages, many embrace this profession of their own accord, and [many] are sent to it by their parents and relations.

(14.3) They are said there to learn by heart a great number of verses; accordingly some remain in the course of training twenty years.

(14.4) Nor do they regard it lawful to commit these to writing, though in almost all other matters, in their public and private transactions, they use Greek characters.


http://www.unexplain...6

Now if we can find an ancient Greek text that says the Celts used characters similar to but not the same as their own, we will be getting somewhere....

.

Hi Vrank........Just dropped in to see what was happening on your thread, if you are looking for a book that talks about samaritan , persian , hebrew, Irish (beth-luis-nion) alphabets being very similar you cant do better than take a look at Celtic Druids by Godfrey Higgins (1827)

i found a copy on-line at Villanova digital library.edu  in the joseph Mcgarrity collection.............if you find a copy skip the first 189 pages which are all about Avebury and Stonehenge, and start on page 190........which is where higgins starts talking about druids , and Cadmean systems of letters and alphabets.........there is also a lot of etymalogical stuff in there on persian , keltic druid, hebrew, and indian gods..........Puzzler should be interested i think !



......One of the interesting things he says , is that anciently religion and philosophy went together and were run by priests, and that there was an elite priesthood throughout the world which spoke virtually the same language between themselves , in later years as countries went to war against each other , or ideas of religion ,philosophy changed , individual philosopher/priests invented writting , not to preserve for the people their history and origins  but so they could keep them secret, his theory seems to be that priests of different nations actually encoded their beliefs so other invading nations could not read or interfere with them ..............maybe this is why your nation invented their frisian alphabet............to hide it from the Magy.???

Edited by NO-ID-EA, 14 October 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[Abramelin]

NO-ID-EA, on 14 October 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Hi Vrank........Just dropped in to see what was happening on your thread, if you are looking for a book that talks about samaritan , persian , hebrew, Irish (beth-luis-nion) alphabets being very similar you cant do better than take a look at Celtic Druids by Godfrey Higgins (1827)

i found a copy on-line at Villanova digital library.edu  in the joseph Mcgarrity collection.............if you find a copy skip the first 189 pages which are all about Avebury and Stonehenge, and start on page 190........which is where higgins starts talking about druids , and Cadmean systems of letters and alphabets.........there is also a lot of etymological stuff in there on persian , keltic druid, hebrew, and indian gods..........Puzzler should be interested i think !



......One of the interesting things he says , is that anciently religion and philosophy went together and were run by priests, and that there was an elite priesthood throughout the world which spoke virtually the same language between themselves , in later years as countries went to war against each other , or ideas of religion ,philosophy changed , individual philosopher/priests invented writting , not to preserve for the people their history and origins  but so they could keep them secret, his theory seems to be that priests of different nations actually encoded their beliefs so other invading nations could not read or interfere with them ..............maybe this is why your nation invented their frisian alphabet............to hide it from the Magy.???

Weclome to UM, NO-ID-EA.

Apparently you know me from the Historum site, but I don't know who you are (= 'no idea', lol. Ib_issi, maybe??)...

Anyway, I found the book online:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Oh, and it's not 'my' thread, the admins split the thread just before that first post of mine here. The rest is now called Part -1-, as you can see in my signature.

==

Finding connections between cultures based on nothing more than similarities in languages, names, words is always risky.

By that alone you could equate the Druids with Dravidians...


.

Edited by Abramelin, 15 October 2012 - 12:28 AM.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 14 October 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Thank you for the list, Abe.

Can you point out the (max. 3) arguments that are most convincing in your opinion?

I will focus on commenting to them for now.

You better pick 3 yourself you want to comment on.

[The Puzzler]

jæ-l-lik

, afries., Pron.: Vw.: s. jõ-hwe-lik

http://www.koeblerge...ch/afries-J.pdf

jõl-lik = jã-hwe-lik

[Abramelin]

Van Gorp, on 14 October 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

For you're previous posts: I don't feel I have to show you anything if you don't mind (and if you mind, i will not mind :-).  
It's not that I am on a queste, so if you have your doubts: leave it as it is, else people can search further at own will.

I'm not asking you to show evidence of papyrus that is said to be from 2000 BC.  That would be a joke.  Because you have none.
About showing sources about a Diets origin older then Greek/Latin: written accounts are a relative recent phenomenon in the longer history and not wide spread.
It is known that our and other's early forefathers had mainly other things to do then writing stuff down, except when they felt the need for  :-)
Secondly it is generally known that in Greek/Roman/Catholic time, original scriptures that did exist but contradicted the Catholic and dominating world view, were burned/corrupted on large scale.
You take Caesar's account for real? Then take OLB also, cuz you have no bigger proof for Caesar's/Tacitus/... accounts then authority of centuries of Catholic feeding.  And that you take for granted?

The difference between an OLB and Caesars writings is that Caesar was being quoted by temporaries and people living a couple of centuries later.

The OLB is a unique document of which only one exists, and it is not quoted (nor its writers mentioned) by anyone.

Btw: I said 2000 BP (= before present), not 2000 BC. But go to some museum (Leiden for instance) to see those papyri (the Romans used papyrus too, for a long time). ***


And I am quite sure that if Caesar had said something like (see bolded part) :

"(14.3) They are said there to learn by heart a great number of verses; accordingly some remain in the course of training twenty years.

(14.4) Nor do they regard it lawful to commit these to writing, though in almost all other matters, in their public and private transactions, they use characters that look like the Greek ones, but somewhat different".....

....then you and others would have seen that as a confirmation of an existing alternative script among the Europeans.

But he didn't say that.

++++

EDIT:

*** Some recent finds:

http://news.national...25_papyrus.html
http://news.national...roman-law-book/

.

Edited by Abramelin, 15 October 2012 - 03:07 AM.

[The Puzzler]

Alba Longa = long altar?. A mountain ridge where sacrifices were held to Jupiter. The t went to b and d in many words. Note lêt in OLB became lad-en (lead, weight, meaning loaded up, heavy). I think this allows for alba to derive from altar.

On the summit was the sanctuary of Jupiter Latiaris, in which the consuls celebrated the Feriae Latinae, and several generals celebrated victories here when they were not accorded regular triumphs in Rome. The temple has not survived, but the Via Triumphalis leading up to it may still be seen.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Alban_Hills

Old Frisian
Noun

altāre m. and n.

• altar

Swedish
Noun
altare n.

• altar (flat-topped structure used for religious rites)

As a sideline but interesting: Volcanic activity under king Tullus Hostilius on the site was reported by Livy in his book of Roman history: "...there had been a shower of stones on the Alban Mount...".
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Monte_Cavo

He placed it at the foot of the Alban Mount and said that it took its name from being extended along a ridge
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Alba_Longa



If the Fryans were in Italy, they imo, were quite possibly the people of Latium.

I've never been to Scotland but it appears on maps to be made up of many long ridges in the North especially.

Edited by The Puzzler, 15 October 2012 - 05:03 AM.