Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


Riaan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Abe, it's really going to be a hell of a job. Ottema was an expert in languages and you say he made mistakes...

I only piked out cause I know that it is completely beyond my comprehension and understanding of any sort of language abilities I have, but if you think you're good enough go for it I say, but lose the attitude towards us/me, please.

I know it will be a hell of a job, and it will take a lot of my time.

Well, so be it.

Goodnight, I really need to go to sleep now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know.

You said you were reading this whole thread, but obviously you skipped past the more 'difficult'' parts.

Nevermind.

Sometimes it gets hard to go through 2600 posts to find stuff.

How about 1 example then of a mistake Ottema made in either?

Just so we can test the waters here.

Add: Or tomorrow, good night and good luck.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know.

You said you were reading this whole thread, but obviously you skipped past the more 'difficult'' parts.

Nevermind.

I didn't read all of it - it was 150 pages. Please repost your examples of Ottema's mistakes, or direct me to the page where you did so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I made a new translation, not a transliteration. I have seen no evidence that the latter is necessary.

And Abramelin didn't say you MADE a new translation, he said you USED Ottema's translation. Of which you admitted in the prior post to have done. Doesn't appear you have any 'moral high ground' here.

On a side note, I just want to Thank everyone for this hilarious thread. 174 pages and not a one of you can seem to agree on what the hell this manuscript (the OLB) says, let alone how it is even remotely relevant to actual history. And yet, we're supposed to believe that, somehow, it is. Priceless!

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Abramelin didn't say you MADE a new translation, he said you USED Ottema's translation. Of which you admitted in the prior post to have done. Doesn't appear you have any 'moral high ground' here.

On a side note, I just want to Thank everyone for this hilarious thread. 174 pages and not a one of you can seem to agree on what the hell this manuscript (the OLB) says, let alone how it is even remotely relevant to actual history. And yet, we're supposed to believe that, somehow, it is. Priceless!

cormac

I used Ottema's transliteration, and made a new translation from it. Perhaps you should look up what those words actually mean.

Edited by Tony S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. This culture existed after the demise of the Roman Empire which is long after the OLB or “Fryan” period. I do, however, think that it is not too far fetched to suggest that this culture "re-emerged" after the Roman oppression.

The author of the article admits that they have "only scratched the surface" to date (my interpretation) and a lot of their conclusions are guesswork.

For one thing, he states:

Anyway, early-medieval society in the region had to be built up again from the 5th century onward. In this period the ship appeared as new trump of the terp districts, especially when the sail came into use somewhere in the 6th century.”

The Frisians did not become international traders, mariners and navigators of note overnight, or even within one or two generations. They must have had this knowledge and skills for a very long time. The Romans may have used these under their own banner or suppressed it for obvious reasons, i.e. these Frisians’ maritime skills, if left unchecked, may well have posed an economic or military threat to the Roman Empire (at least in North-Western Europe).

More than 500 years before this “terp culture”, Tacitus, the Roman Senator and historian (ca 56 AD – ca 117 AD) wrote in his “Germania”

“The Germans, I am apt to believe, derive their original from no other people; and are nowise mixed with different nations arriving amongst them: since anciently those who went in search of new buildings, travelled not by land, but were carried in fleets; and into that mighty ocean so boundless, and, as I may call it, so repugnant and forbidding, ships from our world rarely enter.

For the rest, they affirm Germany to be a recent word, lately bestowed: for that those who first passed the Rhine and expulsed the Gauls, and are now named Tungrians, were then called Germans: and thus by degrees the name of a tribe prevailed, not that of the nation; so that by an appellation at first occasioned by terror and conquest, they afterwards chose to be distinguished, and assuming a name lately invented were universally called Germans.”

Elsewhere Tacitus noted:

“Hitherto, I have been describing Germany towards the west. To the northward, it winds away with an immense compass. And first of all occurs the nation of the Chaucians: who though they begin immediately at the confines of the Frisians, and occupy part of the shore, extend so far as to border upon all the several people whom I have already recounted; till at last, by a Circuit, they reach quite to the boundaries of the Chatti. A region so vast, the Chaucians do not only possess but fill; a people of all the Germans the most noble, such as would rather maintain their grandeur by justice than violence. They live in repose, retired from broils abroad, void of avidity to possess more, free from a spirit of domineering over others. They provoke no wars, they ravage no countries, they pursue no plunder. Of their bravery and power, the chief evidence arises from hence, that, without wronging or oppressing others, they are come to be superior to all. Yet they are all ready to arm, and if an exigency require, armies are presently raised, powerful and abounding as they are in men and horses; and even when they are quiet and their weapons laid aside, their credit and name continue equally high.”

In this case the first issue to be addressed would be the actual documentation for the emergence of a distinct Frisian cultural element. Am rather confident that your research has made you aware of the current understandings in this regard. The Proto-Frisian period is dated to circa 2400-2200 BP, with the building of the terps beginning somewhat before the 2200 BP point. This is of course followed by the Roman period and the (rather short lived) re-emergence of the "proper" Frisian culture before the Frankish domination.

While the cultural/technological/genetic/linguistic elements that were interacting in north-central Europe during the period of 4500 BP to 1200 BP (and later) are rather complex, in order agree with the cultural/technological conditions as apparently depicted in the OLB, one would have to reconcile quite a number of factors. For starters, one may wish to more fully investigate the Bell-Beaker, Urnfield, Hallstatt, and Latene cultures.

As is all too often the situation, the internet is a less than optimal source for qualified information related to studies of this nature. With that in mind, here are a few that may provide a bit of background. Can supply at least a modicum of more detailed technical references should you wish to study such.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Frisians

http://www.zonu.com/detail7-en/2009-12-09-11377/Bell-Beaker-culture-en-Europe-2400--1900-BC.html

http://www.jowsey.com/genealogy/GeneticGenealogy.html

http://cnx.org/content/m17857/latest/

http://www.english-e-corner.com/britishliterature/contents/Medieval/celts.htm

http://www.worldology.com/Europe/ancient_europe.htm

Please, and as always, be cognisant of time-lines.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Abramelin didn't say you MADE a new translation, he said you USED Ottema's translation. Of which you admitted in the prior post to have done. Doesn't appear you have any 'moral high ground' here.

On a side note, I just want to Thank everyone for this hilarious thread. 174 pages and not a one of you can seem to agree on what the hell this manuscript (the OLB) says, let alone how it is even remotely relevant to actual history. And yet, we're supposed to believe that, somehow, it is. Priceless!

cormac

Thanks but you should get off your high horse, Tony has already corrected you I see on where your trivial comment failed.

Secondly, that is why it's a waste of time to get in on Abe's project.

You can believe what you want, no one here is trying to make you believe anything, if you opened your eyes a bit maybe you could make your own interpretation of what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used Ottema's transliteration, and made a new translation from it. Perhaps you should look up what those words actually mean.

I'll give you this much, the second word, per my last post, was supposed to be "transliteration" and not "translation" so I stand corrected. However your "bait and switch" didn't go unnoticed. The point remains that perhaps you should learn the difference between the meanings of the words "used" and "made". So much for your vaunted English superiority.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks but you should get off your high horse, Tony has already corrected you I see on where your trivial comment failed.

Secondly, that is why it's a waste of time to get in on Abe's project.

You can believe what you want, no one here is trying to make you believe anything, if you opened your eyes a bit maybe you could make your own interpretation of what it means.

While the incorrect wording was indeed mine, Tony's "bait and switch" of what Abramelin actually said was much worse.

As to the other, no thanks, you have more experience in making things up.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the incorrect wording was indeed mine, Tony's "bait and switch" of what Abramelin actually said was much worse.

As to the other, no thanks, you have more experience in making things up.

cormac

imo you had no right to really make such a picky trivial comment in the first place. That's why this thread uses up 2 pages at a time with childish bickering.

No one baited and switched anything cormac.

No one said Abe said he MADE a new translation/transliteration anyway, you are grasping at straws.

PS: Gotta go for now.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't, not really.

He admitted he used Ottema's transliteration.

I said I made a new translation, not a transliteration. I have seen no evidence that the latter is necessary.

Okay, so what part of English did YOU not understand? Abramelin said 'used....transliteration', Tony said 'made.....translation'. If Tony didn't catch it, it's his mistake, not mine.

BTW, this thread uses up more space with your questionable facts.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so what part of English did YOU not understand? Abramelin said 'used....transliteration', Tony said 'made.....translation'. If Tony didn't catch it, it's his mistake, not mine.

BTW, this thread uses up more space with your questionable facts.

cormac

I don't think YOU understood any of it quite frankly no matter how much you try to justify it. It's not how the conversation went.

Abe said he would attempt to do a transliteration and also berated everyone here for not having the guts to have try. Tony answered at least he had had a go at making a translation. Abe answered my comment by saying he had not really made any attempt because it was a translation based on Ottema's transliteration, which in Abe's eye's didn't count as anything because it was only a translation of Ottema's transliteration not his own transliteration.

Moving on...

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what was said. It was in Post 2600. Tony mis-applied or misunderstood what Abramelin said. As he quoted what Abramelin said, there is no misunderstanding on my part, it was Tony's. This was no long drawn out conversation, this was a specific reply to a specific quote. Even I understand that.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what was said. It was in Post 2600. Tony mis-applied or misunderstood what Abramelin said. As he quoted what Abramelin said, there is no misunderstanding on my part, it was Tony's. This was no long drawn out conversation, this was a specific reply to a specific quote. Even I understand that.

cormac

No one misunderstood anything. Only you have.

Tony said:

And, let me remind you, I'm the only person here who has produced a new translation. It's all over the Internet.

Then I said:

That's what I thought.

To which Abe answered:

He didn't, not really.

He admitted he used Ottema's transliteration.

To which Tony replied:

I said I made a new translation, not a transliteration. I have seen no evidence that the latter is necessary.

Abe answered:

I know.

You said you were reading this whole thread, but obviously you skipped past the more 'difficult'' parts.

Nevermind.

No where there do I see any 'bait and switch' as you put it.

If anything Abe is trying to say Tony's effort was worthless because he did not make a new transliteration himself but copied from Ottema's one.

Your turn - but I'm pretty much over this now.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, make it up as you go along. Whatever. :rolleyes:

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, make it up as you go along. Whatever. :rolleyes:

cormac

You took the words right outta my mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, let me remind you, I'm the only person here who has produced a new translation. It's all over the Internet.

No you did not. You copied Sandbach's translation verbatum and changed some of his modern place names back to those in the original manuscript. Then you changed some words around the “priestesses” and others to create the impression of some cultic order and, lastly you created numbered “texts”. In short, Mr Steele, you corrupted the Sandbach translation to suit your own agenda.

I suggest other readers do the same little exercise I did i.e. place Sandbach’s version on the one side of your screen and Steele’s version on the other side and compare them line for line.

Herewith a few examples of the changes you made to fit your agenda:

Sandbach: Maagden (Virgins), maidens

Steele: Femmes (Not Virgins per se)

Sandbach: You must tell them of the sea-heroes, of their mighty deeds and distant voyages.

Steele: You must tell them of the wizards, of their magical deeds and distant travels.

Sandbach: 5. If a maiden wishes to marry, she must announce it to the mother, and immediately resign her office, before her passion shall have polluted the light.

Steele: 5. If a femme wishes to renounce her vow of celibacy, she must obtain the permission of the folk-mother, and immediately resign her office, before her passion shall have polluted the light.

Sandbach: From the sages they must learn wisdom

Steele: From the elder wizards they must learn wisdom

Sandbach: Her garments of linen and wool she spun and wove herself.

Steele: 5. Her short kilt of linen, and her tunic of wool, she spun and wove herself.

(These short kilts or “mini-skirts” are mentioned more than once in Steele's version)

Sandbach: Minno was an ancient sea-king. He was a seer and a philosopher, and he gave laws to the Cretans. He was born at Lindaoord, and after all his wanderings he had the happiness to die at Lindahem.

Steele: 1. Minno was an ancient sea-king. He was a seer and a wizard, and he gave laws to the Kretar. He was born at Lindawrda, and after all his wanderings he had the happiness to die at Lindahem.

I could go on and on. Herewith some other “token” changes:

Sandbach: Grevetmen

Steele: reeves

Sandbach: Citadel, Festa, Earth, maidens, Juul-time

Steele: Burgh, Fasta, Irtha,girls, yuletide

Sandbach: 4. After serving as a warrior three years, he may become a citizen, and may have a vote in the election of the headman.

Steele: 4. After serving as a warrior three years, he may become a burgher, and may have a vote in the election of the state officials.

Anybody still want to use him as a consultant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody still want to use him as a consultant?

Not me. I'm still waiting for someone to show how this manuscript has anything to do (factually) with recorded history. Particularly as relates to the original post of this thread. Sadly, I don't think it's EVER going to happen. At least, it hasn't happened in the last 175 pages.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not me. I'm still waiting for someone to show how this manuscript has anything to do (factually) with recorded history. Particularly as relates to the original post of this thread. Sadly, I don't think it's EVER going to happen. At least, it hasn't happened in the last 175 pages.

cormac

The Great Flood.

This website goes to a good effort to give us much information regarding the period around 2200BC when something OBVIOUSLY was occurring geological worldwide. Each part of the world may have suffered different effects, some dried, some got wetter, some did both, very quickly.

The OLB puts it out there, at 2193BC a geological disaster occurred that lasted for 3 years. I haven't really seen anything from you or any site that claims NO changes occurred at this time.

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abe, by the way, the Blog page you asked about comes up in Dutch, you asked before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you did not. You copied Sandbach's translation verbatum and changed some of his modern place names back to those in the original manuscript. Then you changed some words around the “priestesses” and others to create the impression of some cultic order and, lastly you created numbered “texts”. In short, Mr Steele, you corrupted the Sandbach translation to suit your own agenda.

I suggest other readers do the same little exercise I did i.e. place Sandbach’s version on the one side of your screen and Steele’s version on the other side and compare them line for line.

Herewith a few examples of the changes you made to fit your agenda:

Sandbach: Maagden (Virgins), maidens

Steele: Femmes (Not Virgins per se)

Sandbach: You must tell them of the sea-heroes, of their mighty deeds and distant voyages.

Steele: You must tell them of the wizards, of their magical deeds and distant travels.

Sandbach: 5. If a maiden wishes to marry, she must announce it to the mother, and immediately resign her office, before her passion shall have polluted the light.

Steele: 5. If a femme wishes to renounce her vow of celibacy, she must obtain the permission of the folk-mother, and immediately resign her office, before her passion shall have polluted the light.

Sandbach: From the sages they must learn wisdom

Steele: From the elder wizards they must learn wisdom

Sandbach: Her garments of linen and wool she spun and wove herself.

Steele: 5. Her short kilt of linen, and her tunic of wool, she spun and wove herself.

(These short kilts or “mini-skirts” are mentioned more than once in Steele's version)

Sandbach: Minno was an ancient sea-king. He was a seer and a philosopher, and he gave laws to the Cretans. He was born at Lindaoord, and after all his wanderings he had the happiness to die at Lindahem.

Steele: 1. Minno was an ancient sea-king. He was a seer and a wizard, and he gave laws to the Kretar. He was born at Lindawrda, and after all his wanderings he had the happiness to die at Lindahem.

I could go on and on. Herewith some other “token” changes:

Sandbach: Grevetmen

Steele: reeves

Sandbach: Citadel, Festa, Earth, maidens, Juul-time

Steele: Burgh, Fasta, Irtha,girls, yuletide

Sandbach: 4. After serving as a warrior three years, he may become a citizen, and may have a vote in the election of the headman.

Steele: 4. After serving as a warrior three years, he may become a burgher, and may have a vote in the election of the state officials.

Anybody still want to use him as a consultant?

In every case, Mr Raubenheimer, my changes were based on the original text - though I suppose I should thank you for probably being the only person who has ever bothered going through both Sandbach's and mine side by side.

As Abe has already said, my choice of "femme" for what in the original is fam is much better than Sandbach's, who was in any case simply using the Dutch word "maagd".

I'm not surprised you picked up on "wizards", since you even mention it in your book (perhaps it doesn't suit your religious agenda), but the terms in the original Frisian are wicharda and wichandlika.

My translation was good enough for you to use when you thought it was Sandbach's, since you quote it extensively throughout your book, and again, in its entirety, as an appendix. So it's lucky I've got dated proof of when I wrote it, isn't it, since while Sandbach's version is long out of copyright - mine is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Great Flood.

This website goes to a good effort to give us much information regarding the period around 2200BC when something OBVIOUSLY was occurring geological worldwide. Each part of the world may have suffered different effects, some dried, some got wetter, some did both, very quickly.

The OLB puts it out there, at 2193BC a geological disaster occurred that lasted for 3 years. I haven't really seen anything from you or any site that claims NO changes occurred at this time.

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm

And they certainly didn't know this in the 1860s, before they had any proper idea of Egyptian chronology or Sumerian history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every case, Mr Raubenheimer, my changes were based on the original text - though I suppose I should thank you for probably being the only person who has ever bothered going through both Sandbach's and mine side by side.

As Abe has already said, my choice of "femme" for what in the original is fam is much better than Sandbach's, who was in any case simply using the Dutch word "maagd".

I'm not surprised you picked up on "wizards", since you even mention it in your book (perhaps it doesn't suit your religious agenda), but the terms in the original Frisian are wicharda and wichandlika.

My translation was good enough for you to use when you thought it was Sandbach's, since you quote it extensively throughout your book, and again, in its entirety, as an appendix. So it's lucky I've got dated proof of when I wrote it, isn't it, since while Sandbach's version is long out of copyright - mine is not.

Your translation of wicharda and wichandlika into wizard and wizardlike is wrong:

wÆch* 9, afries., st. M. (a): nhd. Kampf; ne. fight (N.); Vw.: s. fol-k-, -hars; Hw.: s.

wÆg-a-nd; vgl. an. vÆg, ae. wÆg, anfrk. wÆg, as. wÆg*, ahd. wÆg*; Q.: W, R, H, E; E.:

germ. *weiga-, *weigaz, st. M. (a), Kampf; germ. *weiga-, *weigam, *wÆga-,

*wÆgam, st. N. (a), Kampf; s. idg. *øeik- (2), Sb., V., Kampf, Kraft, Krieg,

kämpfen, siegen, Pokorny 1128; W.: nnordfries. wigh, wych; L.: Hh 129b, Rh

1146b

wÆch-el-Æe 1, afries., F.: nhd. Hexerei, Zauberei; ne. witchcraft, magic (N.); Hw.:

vgl. mnd. wîchelîe, mnl. wichelie; Q.: AA 165; I.: Lw. mnd. wîchelîe; E.: s. mnd.

wîchelîe, F., Zauberei; vgl. germ. *wikkæ-, *wikkæn, *wikka-, *wikkan, sw. M. (n),

Zauberer; idg. *øeik- (1), V., aussondern, weihen, Pokorny 1128; L.: AA 165

wÆg-a-nd 1, afries., Part. Präs. subst.=M.: nhd. Kämpfer; ne. fighter; Hw.: s. wÆch;

vgl. ae. wÆgend, as. wÆgand*, ahd. wÆgant; Q.: H; E.: s. germ. *wÆgan, st. V.,

kämpfen, fechten, streiten; idg. *øeik- (2), Sb., V., Kampf, Kraft, Krieg, kämpfen,

siegen, Pokorny 1128; L.: Hh 129b, Rh 1148b

*wÆg-a-nd-lik, afries., Adj.: nhd. kämpferisch, tapfer; ne. war-like, brave; E.: s.

wÆg-a-nd, -lik (3); L.: Hh 129b

wÆg-a-nd-lik-e 1, afries., Adv.: nhd. kämpferisch, tapfer; ne. bravely; Q.: H; E.: s.

*wÆg-a-nd-lik; L.: Hh 129b, Rh 1148b

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-W.pdf

wicharda / wichandlika has to do with being brave warriors, heroes... but not aything with wizards or wizardry at all.

If you read what I copied, you will see a word like, "wîchelîe", and how nice it's between the words we are talking about, lol.

'wichelie' has to do with divination using dice, stars or sticks or whatever. In presentday Dutch it is still called 'wichelen'.

-

EDIT:

I would like to check the original manuscript for the word 'wicharda'. I think there is an error in transliteration there...

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your translation of wicharda and wichandlika into wizard and wizardlike is wrong:

wÆch* 9, afries., st. M. (a): nhd. Kampf; ne. fight (N.); Vw.: s. fol-k-, -hars; Hw.: s.

wÆg-a-nd; vgl. an. vÆg, ae. wÆg, anfrk. wÆg, as. wÆg*, ahd. wÆg*; Q.: W, R, H, E; E.:

germ. *weiga-, *weigaz, st. M. (a), Kampf; germ. *weiga-, *weigam, *wÆga-,

*wÆgam, st. N. (a), Kampf; s. idg. *øeik- (2), Sb., V., Kampf, Kraft, Krieg,

kämpfen, siegen, Pokorny 1128; W.: nnordfries. wigh, wych; L.: Hh 129b, Rh

1146b

wÆch-el-Æe 1, afries., F.: nhd. Hexerei, Zauberei; ne. witchcraft, magic (N.); Hw.:

vgl. mnd. wîchelîe, mnl. wichelie; Q.: AA 165; I.: Lw. mnd. wîchelîe; E.: s. mnd.

wîchelîe, F., Zauberei; vgl. germ. *wikkæ-, *wikkæn, *wikka-, *wikkan, sw. M. (n),

Zauberer; idg. *øeik- (1), V., aussondern, weihen, Pokorny 1128; L.: AA 165

wÆg-a-nd 1, afries., Part. Präs. subst.=M.: nhd. Kämpfer; ne. fighter; Hw.: s. wÆch;

vgl. ae. wÆgend, as. wÆgand*, ahd. wÆgant; Q.: H; E.: s. germ. *wÆgan, st. V.,

kämpfen, fechten, streiten; idg. *øeik- (2), Sb., V., Kampf, Kraft, Krieg, kämpfen,

siegen, Pokorny 1128; L.: Hh 129b, Rh 1148b

*wÆg-a-nd-lik, afries., Adj.: nhd. kämpferisch, tapfer; ne. war-like, brave; E.: s.

wÆg-a-nd, -lik (3); L.: Hh 129b

wÆg-a-nd-lik-e 1, afries., Adv.: nhd. kämpferisch, tapfer; ne. bravely; Q.: H; E.: s.

*wÆg-a-nd-lik; L.: Hh 129b, Rh 1148b

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-W.pdf

wicharda / wichandlika has to do with being brave warriors, heroes... but not aything with wizards or wizardry at all.

If you read what I copied, you will see a word like, "wîchelîe", and how nice it's between the words we are talking about, lol.

'wichelie' has to do with divination using dice, stars or sticks or whatever. In presentday Dutch it is still called 'wichelen'

Perhaps you're right - as I've already said, I now feel my version is imperfect in many places. It was made in good faith at the time, with the help of a Frisian speaker. But back then, in the mid-90s when I made it, we didn't have the Internet to help us with its vast resources. This is not intended as an excuse, simply a frank acceptance that a better one is now needed. It doesn't change the fact, however, that my version is still in copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're right - as I've already said, I now feel my version is imperfect in many places. It was made in good faith at the time, with the help of a Frisian speaker. But back then, in the mid-90s when I made it, we didn't have the Internet to help us with its vast resources. This is not intended as an excuse, simply a frank acceptance that a better one is now needed. It doesn't change the fact, however, that my version is still in copyright.

I said I wanted to check the word 'wicharda' in its original script, because I thought that by mistake an -n- had changed into an -r-

Well, I was wrong: in the original manuscript it is indeed 'wicharda' with an -r- (scroll down to the bottom):

http://images.tresoar.nl/bibl-collectie/boeken/oeralinda/groot/pagina.php?p=6&pm=212

The word 'wichandlika' is on the top end of this page:

http://images.tresoar.nl/bibl-collectie/boeken/oeralinda/groot/pagina.php?p=7&pm=212

And the sentence is like, "maen mot tâla hjam fon tha wicharda aend fon hjara wichandlika dêdum"

It's from The Book of Adela's Followers (Thet bok thêra Adela folstar).

==

Btw, why the remark about the copyright?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.