Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11638 replies to this topic

#76    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:54 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 06 July 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

OK. I wrote that before I could read yours.


What you are saying makes perfectly good sense. You are right: I cannot read old Frisian. In fact, I have difficulty in reading Dutch. I have also not yet read Jensma's "Masked God" but this is not because I chose to ignore it. I simply have not had the time yet.
I am in no position to argue with linguists and if they say the language in the manuscript under discussion is too modern, I also accept that. We are, however, still talking about a single manuscript which may or may not have been transcribed several times in it's past.
The point I am trying to make is that the OLB mentions numerous facts and dates that were not known in the 19th century. How do you explain that?
Not everybody in the Netherlands accept that the OLB is a forgery. On his Website, "Earth's Ancient History (http://www.earth-his.../oera-intro.htm) LC Geerts has the following to say:

1. "The authenticity of the Oera Linda Book has not been proved nor disproved"
2. "Against the prevailing opinion of Historians, there are many reasons to believe that "The Oera Linda Book" is one of the most important books about European history from about 3000 BC to at least to about 500 BC."
3. The time has come that we accept these stories as fact and not struggle with each other about little details. When we do so we can search together and someday we will find evidence of Ancient History."

As for the Thera eruption: I mentioned the Krakatoa eruption merely to demonstrate what could be an example of what happened to the Sanorini Islands when Thera exploded in the 16th century BC. You will recall that the shockwave from Krakatoa circled the earth 7 times in 5 days and earth's climate was affected for 5 years afterwards. The shockwave on its own would have created strong atmospheric disturbances and, most likely, strong winds. Thera's eruption is described as possibly the biggest eruption in 20 000 years. A VEI of between 6 and 7 is bound also to create subsequent or "symphathetic" seismic events such as tremors and earthquakes. Depending on the nature or mode of the eruption, the seismic shock could have been well in excess of 8 on the Richter scale. In fact, there is reason to speculate that the explosion was so large that it heralded in the "Greek Dark Ages".
You mentioned the underwater earthquake of 2004 which create the Tsunami that killed some 200 000 people. Sympathetic earthquakes in this case occured as far away as Iceland - on the other side of the world.
I did mention before that the tsunami from Thera may not have reached the Netherlands, but they would nevertheless have experienced very rough seas. I still believe that is more than likely.
Have I left anything out?


You post a link to the site of Geerts about the Oera Linda Book, but I already did that in a former post...

You say : "The point I am trying to make is that the OLB mentions numerous facts and dates that were not known in the 19th century."

And I think you are wrong: much was already known, but not in as much detail as we know now. And then again, a lot depends on the accuracy of the translation. I didn't read Jensma's translation of the OLB, but he's convinced many errors were made in the 19th century.  So, if it appears the most recent translation is quite different from the one by Ottema, then lots of those 'historical data' won't show up.

-

No doubt the Thera eruption will have had a great effect on the weather pattern, much like the Krakatoa eruption had on the global weather pattern.

I have looked into to effects the Krakatoa erupton had on the global weather pattern, but aside from darkness, rain, snow, colored sunsets, drop in global temperature,  no winds nor high seas at a distance of 4000 kilometers or more (like the distance from Thera to the North Sea), as you are suggesting might have happened in the North Sea when Thera exploded.

To continue with the December 2004 tsunami after the giant under sea earth quake: no high seas, no storm in Japan, even with those aftershocks and sympethatic earthquakes.


-=

Something else: can you explain to me why the script as used in the OLB is found nowhere else?

If the Frisian/Freya empire ranged from England to Poland, from Scandinavia to Spain, then why do we only find runes or Fenician script (and many other scripts similar to Fenician) all over this area, from that period?

Earlier I gave you an example of a really old Frisian text; it's made with runes, not with OLB script.
Even the translated sentence didn't come close to the language as used in the OLB.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 06 July 2010 - 01:13 PM.


#77    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 06 July 2010 - 02:39 PM

Some new info (for you) :

Quote

A description of a course at the University of Amsterdam states "One of the characteristics of Frisian historiography and literature from the Middle-Ages up to the nineteenth and twentieth century is the existence of a comprehensive corpus of fantastic, apocryphal and mystified historic works, which deal with the origins and identity of the Frisians. Well known examples are medieval myths of origin like the Gesta Frisiorum or the Tractatus Alvini, sixteenth-century humanistic scholarly books by e.g. Suffridus Petrus, Ocko van Scarl en Martinus Hamconius and nineteenth-century forgeries like the Tescklaow and the infamous Oera Linda Book."[1]

The 17th century chronicle Frisia seu de viris rebusque illustribus, by Martinus Hamconius, purported to list the ancient kings of Frisia, beginning with Friso who had allegedly migrated from India during the time of Alexander the Great. A 19th century work, the Oera Linda Book (authorship uncertain but considered to be a hoax), embellished these stories further by describing an ancient and glorious history for the Frisians extending back thousands of years, during which time they were supposedly ruled over by a line of matriarchs known as folk-mothers, founded by the eponymous goddess Frya, ancestress of the Frisians
.

From: http://en.wikipedia....ulers_of_Frisia



Quote

Friso is a legendary king of the Frisians who is said to have ruled around 300 BC. According to Martinus Hamconius in his 17th century chronicle Frisia seu de viris rebusque illustribus, and also the 19th century Oera Linda Book, Friso was a leader of a group of Frisian colonists who had been settled in the Punjab for well over a millennium when they were discovered by Alexander the Great. Taking service with Alexander, Friso and the colonists eventually found their way back to their ancestral homeland of Frisia, where Friso founded a dynasty of kings.

Another legend has it that a red banner owned by Friso, called the Magnusvaan, is hidden at the church Almenum
.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friso



=====

EDIT:

It's a real pity you can't read Dutch, and to be honest, I am geting a bit tired of trying to translate from Dutch to English.

Someone who wrote a nice piece about the Oera Linda Book is Wim Zaal in his "De Verlakkers" (aka "Valsheid in Geschriften").

This Wim Zaal is convinced that no one else but Joost Hiddes Halbertsma was the one with the knowledge and the character to create the OLB (he was very pissed of about not getting a doctorate on the Univeristy of Leiden for one thing).
.

Edited by Abramelin, 06 July 2010 - 03:26 PM.


#78    OldTimeRadio

OldTimeRadio

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined:30 Sep 2005

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:18 AM

View PostMattshark, on 26 June 2010 - 07:55 AM, said:

Timo Niroma is not a professor....

    I'm sorry, but doesn't that depend on whether Niroma has students?


#79    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 07 July 2010 - 05:05 AM

Been thinking more on this language thing.

Lets say it's not a hoax and the aunt has given him the manuscript. Who is to say she has not copied it and as writing it copied it to modern language. I know I would, if someone gave me an ancient manuscript and asked me to copy it, I would probably try and translate it into a more modern writing.

The paper appears to be from 1850. This to me, more than any language thing says the manuscript was written then.

I read some of what Jensma had to say. He says 3 men were responsible for it as a hoax.

I'll say this: some of it has been written by a woman. I know it is womens writing style. They know some of the Bible was written by a woman because of the writing style.
We write different to men, women can write like men but men cannot write like women. The parts that were signed by women are distinctively different to the parts written by Konered and the men.

I would find it hard to believe a man or men wrote the whole manuscript actually.

Anyway, that's just a point I saw, no proof.



Apart from the language which imo does not make it a hoax because the paper is new and it could be a modern copy - I think you'd have to be pretty silly to use modern paper to try and hoax someone with a 12th century manuscript, I'm sure 12th century paper looks rather different to paper made in 1850 although I am no paper expert.

The content:

Abramelin, I agree much can be found in many old texts and myths and much was already known somehwere in the world but much of it is unknown, here is something they apparently did not know when it would have been hoaxed:
The chronicler Konered oera Linda recounted how, approximately 260 years before Christ, Friso's son Adel with his bride Ifkja wandered among the Swiss Lake-dwellers who had, since the abandonment of their settlements, been unknown until 1853 when a very low water level revealed the remains of the dwellings. This would have been too late for any supposed forger. Likewise the knowledge that the West Frisian Islands were once part of the mainland came yet considerably later. The manuscript therefore clearly contains knowledge of geography which was unavailable at the time of any alleged forgery.

Wiki is pretty sketchy on the original details of the handing over so here it is:
In the year 1848, Cornelis over de Linden, master shipwright at the Royal Netherlands Dockyards at Helder, near the West Frisian island of Texel came, through his Aunt Aafjie Meylhof, into possession of a text or collection of several writings which had been in the care of his departed grandfather, Andries over de Linden. The text was written in an unusual script and Cornelis may have studied runes in hopes of deciphering it. Not a scholar himself and thus unaware of the possible import of his legacy, he waited nineteen years to present the collection to a Dr. Elco Verwijs, Archivist of the Province Friesland, who, seeing that it was written in an ancient Frisian, asked the Frisian Society, Friesch Genootschap for support in the translation and publication of the writings; it was not granted. Finally, the cause of the text, to be known as The Oera Linda Book, was taken up by a Dr. J. G. Ottema who edited, translated the work into Dutch and published it in two editions, one in 1872 and another in 1876. The accompanying transliteration of the original which appeared in the latter was used in this English translation. When this writing, consisting of chronicles, laws and doctrines came to light, near the middle of the nineteenth century, it was attacked and denounced as a fraud even by those who, according to Dr. Ottema, had not actually read it He complained that there was a movement afoot "first to halt the edition and thereafter to go against the spreading." Furthermore, Dr. Ottema also noted that: "Not only within the land, but also from abroad has one taken the field against that book, as if the well-being of land and folk depended upon the authenticity or inauthenticity thereof." Once you have read this translation, you may ask yourself then, why some are so ardently sure that the source must be a forgery. How would such a book have to appear so that they might believe it to be real?

The alphabet it is written, which more than Roman is actually a Greek form. The language itself as Jensma and yourself has pointed out has numerous problems but they are explainable, see below...

The unusual alphabet in which the text is written may be the only known example of the Greek-like script which Caesar reported to be in use by the Helvetians, B.G. I: 29 & VI: 14. The tendency of the transcribers of the thirteenth century, when the last mentioned transcription of the text was made, was to adjust old writing to make it more understandable to contemporary readers, while preserving much of the original language. This resulted in many mixed texts which contain elements of several periods. At the beginning of much vernacular writing, with a few exceptions such as Anglo-Saxon, usage was highly irregular due to the lack of printing and national academies to standardize language. Language could change radically between generations and vary considerably with dialect; writers in the vernacular wrote as they heard. It is therefore not strange that the usage of these chronicles should contain so many diverse elements from Frisian, Dutch, Low German and even High German.

It is hard to dispute the greatness of Martin Luther for German as we know it can be seen as his invention. However, he also began the idea that translation must concern itself less with preserving the exact meaning of the original and more with creating good literature in the intended language. This is a fault of the English translation, produced by William R. Sandbach, in 1876. Namely, it is too smooth. But my translation seeks to preserve the plainspoken and yet profound eloquence of these chroniclers whose sentences are often either too long or too short and full of multiple negatives. Moreover, the Sandbach text has a considerable number of mistranslations which I have noted in my foreword.

Frisian is the next of kin to English, the only other language in the Anglo-Frisian group. It is an accident of history which has paired such a small tongue, preserved only through constant struggle, of which most people are unaware, with the giant English which has become so very international, first through British and then through American world power. To read these thirteenth century Frisian writings has somewhat the same effect as the contemporary Middle English. Thus, to the English speaker, especially one with knowledge of the Germanic Languages, the texts of The Oera Linda Book are familiar territory.


Logic:
The latest investigations to date, into the amount of C14 in the growth rings of the ancient Bristlecone Pine have revealed that the loss of radioactive carbon by organic matter is not constant as once thought, for some quite old rings show more C14 than had been expected. This has greatly altered the established view of antiquity. No longer can the megalithic construction in Northwestern Europe be seen as imitation of the Near Eastern models of Egypt and of Mycenae to the south; rather, the reverse may be true. Therefore Frisian technical superiority and the Frisian contribution to the foundation of Hellenic civilization is very likely even if the Frisians themselves were not part of a megalithic tomb building culture. Indeed, we see here the persons upon whom the Classical deities Minerva and Neptune are based as well as the Norse Wodin or Odin. Hence, one may wonder whether mythological characters were actually real people who became the objects of much fantasy and exaggeration in the manner of today's biografiction.


http://www.oeralindbook.com/

Note: This guy is flogging his version of the book, nevertheless, the points he makes should stand up as pretty good reasons to think twice about whether the book is indeed a forgery.


My own personal opinion on Jon and Minerva settling in Athens c. 1628BC fits very well into history as we know it. The Parian Marble has Cecrops at 1582BC, just 50 years after the date give in the Oera Linda Book for the founding of Athens by Minerva and Jon. It is written by ancient writers (one at least, I cant think who right now, that Cecrops is Egyptian) I think Jon is probably Ion whom Athena is always aligned with, the Ionians.
One could then say well, they got the dates from the Parian Marble but if so, the Trojan War in Oera Linda book would be 1218BC.

I personally see links that seem to make a lot of sense.

Abe, not saying anything you have put forward is incorrect but from one of your other posts you are open to looking at it more carefully.

Then I looked carefully a big map I have and looked carefully at the area and saw a town called Arum. The area said to be Atland, it does appear that water has inundated the area and into the Zuider Zee although I am not up with Dutch geology I cannot see why this area would not have been washed away as told in the story, they return and describe the area after inundation.

Since the Kelts retain the original story of Phaethon and Kalta is the namesake of the Kelts,  I actually think it is describing the same event possibly and also it may be the story of Atlantis, since I also think the story of Phaethon may be the same as Atlantis.

I also like the frankness of it all:
From the other Greeks you will have heard a great deal of bad about Cecrops, because he was not in good repute; but I dare affirm that be was an enlightened man; very renowned both among the inhabitants and among us, for he was against oppression, unlike the other priests, and was virtuous, and knew how to value the wisdom of distant nations. Knowing that, he permitted us to live according to our own Asegaboek. There was a story current that he was favourable to us because he was the son of a Frisian girl and an Egyptian priest: the reason of this was that he had blue eyes, and that many of our girls had been stolen and sold to Egypt, but he never confirmed this. However it may have been, certain it is that he showed us more friendship than all the other priests together. When he died, his successors soon began to tear up our charters, and gradually to enact so many unsuitable statutes that at long last nothing remained of liberty but the shadow and the name. Besides, they would not allow the laws to be written, so that the knowledge of them was hidden from us. Formerly all the cases in Athens were pleaded in our language, but afterwards in both languages, and at last in the native language only. At first the men of Athens only married women of our own race, but the young men as they grew up with the girls of the country took them to wife. The b****** children of this connection were the handsomest and cleverest in the world; but they were likewise the wickedest, wavering between the two parties, paying no regard to laws or customs except where they suited their own interests. As long as a ray of Frya’s spirit existed, all the building materials were for common use, and no one might build a house larger or better than his neighbours; but when some degenerate townspeople got rich by sea-voyages and by the silver that their slaves got in the silver countries, they went to live out on the hills or in the valleys. There, behind high enclosures of trees or walls, they built palaces with costly furniture, and in order to remain in good odour with the nasty priests, they placed there likenesses of false gods and unchaste statues. Sometimes the dirty priests and princes wished for the boys rather than the girls, and often led them astray from the paths of virtue by rich presents or by force. Because riches were more valued by this lost and degenerate race than virtue or honour, one sometimes saw boys dressed in splendid flowing robes, to the disgrace of their parents and maidens, and to the shame of their own sex. If our simple parents came to a general assembly at Athens and made complaints, a cry was raised, Hear, hear! there is a sea-monster going to speak. Such is Athens become, like a morass in a tropical country full of leeches, toads, and poisonous snakes, in which no man of decent habits can set his foot.

Maybe the book is too close to the truth and that is the problem, it goes against everything we are taught to think and in the middle of the 19th century when the whole world was being torn into little ownership pieces I imagine this kind of thing would have been rushed into the closest rubbish bin.

Edited by The Puzzler, 07 July 2010 - 05:07 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#80    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:04 AM

Abe, maybe speaking Dutch has no bearing on it's understanding....? If it an Old English language and the modern Frisian is Dutch influenced, the original text would not have been Dutch Frisian - modern Frisian. As the text was in an area that became an area of Dutch speaking people, somewhere along the way it would have been translated from the Old English into an Old Frisian and then into modern Frisian and then that translation has been found to be the modern Frisian Dutch which seems to make it a forgery.... :wacko:

Frisian is the language most closely related to English and Scots, but after at least five hundred years of being subject to the influence of Dutch, modern Frisian in some aspects bears a greater similarity to Dutch than to English; one must also take into account the centuries-long drift of English away from Frisian. Thus the two languages have become less mutually intelligible over time, partly due to the marks which Dutch and Low German have left on Frisian, and partly due to the vast influence some languages (in particular French) have had on English throughout the centuries. Although intelligibility is often strained between the two languages (especially spoken), the Northumbrian dialect of English bears a striking similarity to Frisian in many ways.

Just a thought.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#81    Qoais

Qoais

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2007

Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:37 PM

It reminds me of the Bok Saga and how the language was based on a ring (circle). I can definitely believe it's close to English because if you hear Ior Bok on tape, the sounds really flow into the English words in a lot of cases.    Although at one point it mentions that one may not have land in front of their house, but only at the back, it also says somewhere that a person is given a piece of land equal in all directions = a circle.

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Intuitive knowledge is knowledge beyond intellectual reasoning.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."

#82    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:06 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 07 July 2010 - 06:04 AM, said:

Abe, maybe speaking Dutch has no bearing on it's understanding....? If it an Old English language and the modern Frisian is Dutch influenced, the original text would not have been Dutch Frisian - modern Frisian. As the text was in an area that became an area of Dutch speaking people, somewhere along the way it would have been translated from the Old English into an Old Frisian and then into modern Frisian and then that translation has been found to be the modern Frisian Dutch which seems to make it a forgery.... :wacko:

Frisian is the language most closely related to English and Scots, but after at least five hundred years of being subject to the influence of Dutch, modern Frisian in some aspects bears a greater similarity to Dutch than to English; one must also take into account the centuries-long drift of English away from Frisian. Thus the two languages have become less mutually intelligible over time, partly due to the marks which Dutch and Low German have left on Frisian, and partly due to the vast influence some languages (in particular French) have had on English throughout the centuries. Although intelligibility is often strained between the two languages (especially spoken), the Northumbrian dialect of English bears a striking similarity to Frisian in many ways.

Just a thought.

You obviously didn't read what I posted from Goffe Jensma.

And you also forgot about the FACT that the Frisians concocted many fabulations and fantasies about their history; it was something of a national sport.

These guys really knew about ancient Greek writers, like Homer, Herodotes, Plato, and so on.

These Frisian historians were very smart.

Just think about that before you are amazed how their 'history' resembles the writings of for instance a Homer...

Edited by Abramelin, 07 July 2010 - 04:09 PM.


#83    TheSearcher

TheSearcher

    Coffee expert extraordinair

  • Member
  • 3,845 posts
  • Joined:16 Jun 2009

Posted 08 July 2010 - 08:22 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 07 July 2010 - 06:04 AM, said:

Abe, maybe speaking Dutch has no bearing on it's understanding....? If it an Old English language and the modern Frisian is Dutch influenced, the original text would not have been Dutch Frisian - modern Frisian. As the text was in an area that became an area of Dutch speaking people, somewhere along the way it would have been translated from the Old English into an Old Frisian and then into modern Frisian and then that translation has been found to be the modern Frisian Dutch which seems to make it a forgery.... :wacko:

Frisian is the language most closely related to English and Scots, but after at least five hundred years of being subject to the influence of Dutch, modern Frisian in some aspects bears a greater similarity to Dutch than to English; one must also take into account the centuries-long drift of English away from Frisian. Thus the two languages have become less mutually intelligible over time, partly due to the marks which Dutch and Low German have left on Frisian, and partly due to the vast influence some languages (in particular French) have had on English throughout the centuries. Although intelligibility is often strained between the two languages (especially spoken), the Northumbrian dialect of English bears a striking similarity to Frisian in many ways.

Just a thought.

Actually Old Frisian, Old Scots and Old English are related and very very similar and most likely share a common ancestor, but they are, however, separate languages. Also, I don't really see why there would have been a translation from Old English into Old Frisian in the first place, since the Oera Linda Book is allegedly purely Frisian to begin with.

This brings me to another point, everybody seems to forget Middle Frisian, evolved from Old Frisian from the 16th century and was spoken until ca. 1820. If the book was indeed as old as they claim, one would expect a Middle Frisian influence in language and syntax and not a Modern Frisian influence.

But this is all a moot point really since the Book itself says :

You must preserve these books with body and soul. They contain the history of all our people, as well as of our forefathers. Last year I saved them in the flood, as well as you and your mother; but they got wet, and therefore began to perish. In order not to lose them, I copied them on foreign paper.
In case you inherit them, you must copy them likewise, and your children must do so too, so that they may never be lost.

To me this means copy them as is, no more, no less. When you copy something, which seems this important and vital, you do not change it, not for any reason. By all means the text should be pure unchanged Old Frisian, but as we can see, it isn't. The syntax is Modern Frisian, as seem the expressions used.

To me it screams elaborate forgery.

And Abe is very correct about one thing, even nowadays, the Frisians are known for being able to spin quite a good yarn ;-), is is kind of their national sport indeed.

It is only the ignorant who despise education.
Publilius Syrus.

So god made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?!

#84    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 08 July 2010 - 11:25 AM

View PostTheSearcher, on 08 July 2010 - 08:22 AM, said:

Actually Old Frisian, Old Scots and Old English are related and very very similar and most likely share a common ancestor, but they are, however, separate languages. Also, I don't really see why there would have been a translation from Old English into Old Frisian in the first place, since the Oera Linda Book is allegedly purely Frisian to begin with.

This brings me to another point, everybody seems to forget Middle Frisian, evolved from Old Frisian from the 16th century and was spoken until ca. 1820. If the book was indeed as old as they claim, one would expect a Middle Frisian influence in language and syntax and not a Modern Frisian influence.

But this is all a moot point really since the Book itself says :

You must preserve these books with body and soul. They contain the history of all our people, as well as of our forefathers. Last year I saved them in the flood, as well as you and your mother; but they got wet, and therefore began to perish. In order not to lose them, I copied them on foreign paper.
In case you inherit them, you must copy them likewise, and your children must do so too, so that they may never be lost.

To me this means copy them as is, no more, no less. When you copy something, which seems this important and vital, you do not change it, not for any reason. By all means the text should be pure unchanged Old Frisian, but as we can see, it isn't. The syntax is Modern Frisian, as seem the expressions used.

To me it screams elaborate forgery.

And Abe is very correct about one thing, even nowadays, the Frisians are known for being able to spin quite a good yarn ;-), is is kind of their national sport indeed.
:lol:
I hear you but how about this, he says the original translater of William Sandbach probably changed it so it sounds too smooth, maybe the actual original was not in Modern Frisian. Maybe it didn't seem vitally important at the time.

It is hard to dispute the greatness of Martin Luther for German as we know it can be seen as his invention. However, he also began the idea that translation must concern itself less with preserving the exact meaning of the original and more with creating good literature in the intended language. This is a fault of the English translation, produced by William R. Sandbach, in 1876. Namely, it is too smooth. But my translation seeks to preserve the plainspoken and yet profound eloquence of these chroniclers whose sentences are often either too long or too short and full of multiple negatives.


Should be pure unchanged Old Frisian....maybe.
Old Frisian is a West Germanic language spoken between the 8th and 16th centuries in the area between the Rhine and Elbe on the European North Sea coast. The language of the earlier inhabitants of the region (the Frisians famously mentioned by Tacitus) is attested only in a few personal names and place-names.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Old_Frisian

So, is Old Frisian what you should be looking for? The Frisians prior to the 8th century did not speak Old Frisian. Maybe the language and alphabet used in the book actually is from prior to Old Frisian which would account for why there is a description of the writing (why so if plain old Old Frisian) and says that it has been corrupted elsewhere and this form is the original.

Edit to add link but link is actually above.

Edited by The Puzzler, 08 July 2010 - 11:46 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#85    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 08 July 2010 - 11:33 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 07 July 2010 - 04:06 PM, said:

You obviously didn't read what I posted from Goffe Jensma.

And you also forgot about the FACT that the Frisians concocted many fabulations and fantasies about their history; it was something of a national sport.

These guys really knew about ancient Greek writers, like Homer, Herodotes, Plato, and so on.

These Frisian historians were very smart.

Just think about that before you are amazed how their 'history' resembles the writings of for instance a Homer...
I read lots on Jensma and saw nothing that really swayed me.
OK, I'll read up some more on them and see how I think they come across in that field.




Searcher: Frisian is not Dutch. Modern Frisian has an overlay of Dutch words on it. Frisian is related to Old English, a Germanic language, it has only been contaminated by Dutch.

When followed by front vowels the Germanic /k/ softened to a /tʃ/ sound; for example, the Frisian for cheese and church is tsiis and tsjerke, whereas in Dutch it is kaas and kerk. One rhyme traditional to both England and Friesland demonstrates the palpable similarity between Frisian and English: "Bread, butter, and green cheese is good English and good Frisian," which is pronounced more or less the same in both languages (Frisian: "Brea, bûter, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk."

PS: So, more than likely I am more capable of reading it than Abe.... :rolleyes: since I speak such goed Ingelsk.

Edited by The Puzzler, 08 July 2010 - 11:37 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#86    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 08 July 2010 - 11:34 AM

When you copy something, which seems this important and vital, you do not change it, not for any reason. By all means the text should be pure unchanged Old Frisian, but as we can see, it isn't. The syntax is Modern Frisian, as seem the expressions used.

And I agree. Searcher. I also had to think of the ancient Jewish scribes: they painstakingly copied the Torah  for many centuries, and they didn't change one single word (as far as I know).

One of the things of the OLB, according to Jensma and others before him, is that it contains loanwords from other languages, like French and German, but distorted in a way to make them look more 'Frisian'.

I find that strange to say the least... If the OLB was as 'holy' and important is it is said to be, then why change it?

And again, why have no other manuscripts been found that use the same script as used in the OLB? During it's hayday the empire reached from England to Poland, and from Spain to Scandinavia, so one should expect to find at least some other manuscripts or memorial stones using this special script.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 July 2010 - 11:36 AM.


#87    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 08 July 2010 - 11:43 AM

Puzzler, you said: Abe, maybe speaking Dutch has no bearing on it's understanding....?

Yes, it sure does, for all the translations were into Dutch, and these Dutch translations were later used for the translations into English.

Also all the interpretations of the OLB were in Dutch, both the one by Ottema and by Overwijn, and again, these interpretations were used for many later works in English.


#88    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 08 July 2010 - 11:50 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 08 July 2010 - 11:33 AM, said:

I read lots on Jensma and saw nothing that really swayed me.
OK, I'll read up some more on them and see how I think they come across in that field.




Searcher: Frisian is not Dutch. Modern Frisian has an overlay of Dutch words on it. Frisian is related to Old English, a Germanic language, it has only been contaminated by Dutch.

When followed by front vowels the Germanic /k/ softened to a /tʃ/ sound; for example, the Frisian for cheese and church is tsiis and tsjerke, whereas in Dutch it is kaas and kerk. One rhyme traditional to both England and Friesland demonstrates the palpable similarity between Frisian and English: "Bread, butter, and green cheese is good English and good Frisian," which is pronounced more or less the same in both languages (Frisian: "Brea, bûter, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk."

PS: So, more than likely I am more capable of reading it than Abe.... :rolleyes: since I speak such goed Ingelsk.


I doubt you can read it, Puzzler.

If I listen to a modern Frisian, talking in his own language, and if he talks slowly, I can understand much of what he says.

If I read the OLB text in Latin script, I understand quite a lot. And again, I doubt if you could, Puzz, lol.


Btw, I already gave you an example of really authentic old Frisian:

op hæmu jibada æmluþ : iwi ok up duna (a)le wimœd æh þusa

It's from the 6th or 7th century.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 July 2010 - 11:52 AM.


#89    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 08 July 2010 - 01:24 PM

Abe, straight away it seems right to me because of this:

The Frisian origins are obscure. Archeologically, Frisians share a local development with other people like the Belgae in northwest continental regions, dating to the Elp culture (1800-800 BC). The Elp culture shows local continuity, starting with the emergence of the neolithic Corded Ware culture (2900 BC onwards until 2450) and running through Bell-Beaker cultures (2700–2100), Bronze Age Barbed Wire Beakers (2100-1800 BC). The Elp Culture itself began with a Hügelgräber phase, showing a close relationship to other Northern European Hügelgräber groups (sharing low-quality pottery called "Kümmerkeramik"). This phase transitioned smoothly and locally to Urnfields (1200-800 BC). Apparently, the local tradition was only broken around 800 BC, by the Iron Age Hallstatt culture and later by La Tene, which originated south and south east of Central Europe. It was thought that this change was caused by immigration, but it is now attributed to a local development stimulated by external influences.[3] The Hallstatt elites may have had little social influence in Frisia, because there is no evidence of royal burials there.

Because I know from all the research I did in my Celtic Influence in Greece thread that the Urnfield culture is seen in Greece and the line here would continue through into Greece. In fact it explains now to me how the knowledge the Greeks had from people who were very early Celtic people came to them. I do think Athena is not Greek but from a Celtic background and you can check that fact in my very 1st post in the above mentioned thread. Now I know that Kalka who is the namesake of the Celts is Frisian it all comes together, she is probably Nemesis.


This seems to gel with their dislike of monks...no making that one up.
Early attempts to Christianize Frisia were unsuccessful in converting the fiercely pagan Frisians, and various monks were murdered or banished, such as the legendary example of the murder of Saint Boniface near Dokkum.
Of course, they were eventually subjugated to Christianity.

Thought this was interesting...
In the 8th century, Charlemagne freed the people of Friesland from swearing fealty to foreign overlords "That all Frisians would be fully free, the born and the unborn, so long as the wind blows from heaven and the child cries, grass grows green and flowers bloom, as far as the sun rises and the world stands".

This is from a 12th century law text[15] written in Old Frisian using the poetic saga-style of Scandinavian epics.
'
Poetic saga-style...seems the go.

Are you sure they made up these fanicful stories of themselves, seems they have quite a heritage to me.
The Frisii were known and respected by the Romans and written about by several sources. Tacitus wrote a treatise about the Germanic peoples in 69, describing the habits of the Germanic people, as well as listing numerous tribes by name. Of the many tribes he mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one still in use to refer unequivocally to the same ethnic group.

Seems they may have always had one since they were so respected by the Romans and written about, they must have had some sort of history worth something.
They hanged a tax collector, always worth remembering. That's liberty in a nutshell.

Eg: American War of Independence was a war on taxes.




As far as Homer goes, where did Homer get his stories I ask myself? Maybe Homer is the copier because from what I read, it does not say what Homer says at all but leads to how Homer has come up with a story in some myth. This information may be what Homer used to construct his own stories that actually seem to me to be more propaganda for Athens than anything else.

Tis all very interesting I must say.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#90    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 08 July 2010 - 01:33 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 08 July 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

When you copy something, which seems this important and vital, you do not change it, not for any reason. By all means the text should be pure unchanged Old Frisian, but as we can see, it isn't. The syntax is Modern Frisian, as seem the expressions used.

And I agree. Searcher. I also had to think of the ancient Jewish scribes: they painstakingly copied the Torah  for many centuries, and they didn't change one single word (as far as I know).

One of the things of the OLB, according to Jensma and others before him, is that it contains loanwords from other languages, like French and German, but distorted in a way to make them look more 'Frisian'.

I find that strange to say the least... If the OLB was as 'holy' and important is it is said to be, then why change it?

And again, why have no other manuscripts been found that use the same script as used in the OLB? During it's hayday the empire reached from England to Poland, and from Spain to Scandinavia, so one should expect to find at least some other manuscripts or memorial stones using this special script.



.
You also said:
Btw, I already gave you an example of really authentic old Frisian:

op hęmu jibada ęmluž : iwi ok up duna (a)le wimœd ęh žusa

It's from the 6th or 7th century.

And my answer was:

Should be pure unchanged Old Frisian....maybe.
Old Frisian is a West Germanic language spoken between the 8th and 16th centuries in the area between the Rhine and Elbe on the European North Sea coast. The language of the earlier inhabitants of the region (the Frisians famously mentioned by Tacitus) is attested only in a few personal names and place-names.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Old_Frisian

So, is Old Frisian what you should be looking for? The Frisians prior to the 8th century did not speak Old Frisian. Maybe the language and alphabet used in the book actually is from prior to Old Frisian which would account for why there is a description of the writing (why so if plain old Old Frisian) and says that it has been corrupted elsewhere and this form is the original.

I'll add: They do go on about it being a purer form and if it was common language why draw us examples of it. The syntax of it may have been found prior to Old Frisian when writing in the poetic saga-style as I mention in my answer post above this one.

Maybe Searcher could read it....
Small groups of Frisians settled the surrounding lands and their settlements have been traced to England, Scotland, Norway, Germany, Belgium, France, and obviously in Denmark and the Netherlands. Their language was probably very close to that of the ancient Belgae.  :geek:

In an mmm bop it's gone...