Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

Very well possible.

Wishing someone 'heil', or 'behoud' (as in behouden vaart) is virtually the same.

No way.

It is used as in 'to hold on to something', or 'to keep'.

It is not the same.

[Otharus]

In thinking more about FLÍ (= to flee, escape, flood), I realised something funny.

A relation between the Dutch words 'fluiten' (to whistle, flute) and the pompous word for to fart, 'flatuleren' (from Latin 'flatus' = wind, fart).

[Van Gorp]

The word is Hellinggar and linga is in the Frisian Dictionary - hard to find the meaning but in English, linger means hang out or even stay around - so hel-linggars - would be hill lingerers - people who lingered (lived, stayed) in the hills.

Goodnight for now.

Because of Ny-Hellenia

A little essay (what to prove :-) ?)

A-tribute to the word Hel.

The cradle of civilisation is said to be Hellas: Hel-As (Helaas! Alas!)

AM 2550:

This is the period where the Greec civilisation took cradle.

Though her beginning is fabulous, not knowing their own true origine.

This is even said by the most reliable source Diodorus Siculus.

Even Plinius and Cicero did not believe what is generally said about the Greek origine.

“Omnis Graecia fabulositas sicut”

Schrieck is willing to help a bit in clearing up this age-old misunderstanding :-)

Pindarus says as follows: For a right understanding, only 3 words are needed.

We will do the same, and with many words that follow, we will disprove the many and blunt fairy tales.

We will even prove that the Greeck names are of the origine of the first Skythen, whom they have always known as their closest neighbours.

HEL-AS: Decline (lean) – Water

HELLES-PONTUS: ‘t gat (ga-uit), het ver-bond (want ver-bind), the bond en the pont between upper and lower sea.

Sint-Joris Arm by the Belgen, HEL-ES-BONT by the Skythen who lived their since early time.

As and Es are early names for water. Mar-es is the big sea (connected is Moer-As).

Amasia is AM-AS: living at the water (Amasones -> Am As Wonen)

… end the list cotinues for pages untill the last letter of the Alfabet :-)

Concerning Helena: In is of course In :-)

[Otharus]

It is not the same.

But ofcourse the words are related.

"Houd je taai"

"Behouden vaart"

Held is also past tense to to hold.

[Abramelin]

But ofcourse the words are related.

"Houd je taai"

"Behouden vaart"

Held is also past tense to to hold.

It means nothing but 'be safe'.

What has that got to do with anything 'holy'?

I will bet someone will come up with 'holt' or 'wood' soon.

Trees being sacred and all that.

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

What has that got to do with anything 'holy'?

The dutch word is HEILIG.

HELD is used as a benediction in the OLB, like "hail", "heil", "health", "behoud".

Etcetera.

It couldn't be more obvious.

What you should do is browse all different uses in OLB of HELD, HALD and HOLD (control F).

Edited May 19, 2012 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

The dutch word is HEILIG.

HELD is used as a benediction in the OLB, like "hail", "heil", "health", "behoud".

Etcetera.

It couldn't be more obvious.

What you should do is browse all different uses in OLB of HELD, HALD and HOLD (control F).

I did, and I used my Google Toolbar which is even more easy to use: it highlights every HELD, HOLD and HALD.

And everytime it has to do with 'keeping' or 'holding' something.

[Otharus]

And everytime it has to do with 'keeping' or 'holding' something.

How would you translate these fragments then?

HELD BÉID THA FRYA

HJRA HELD.DRVNK BJADA

FOR HJARA AJNE HELD

HELD. ENDE FON ’T BOK.

ALLE GOD MINNANDA FRYAS BERN SY HELD

ALLE AFTA FRYAS HELD

etcetera.

Are you suggesting there is no relation between Heil! (common benediction before 1945) and heilig?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Otharus

[Leonardo]

Not that I don't appreciate the linguistic argument being played out in this thread (and it's predecessor), but I have to ask whether there is any archaeology that supports the OLB being factual?

After all, it is via archaeological support that we validate the accuracy and factual nature of other allegedly ancient tomes.

[Abramelin]

How would you translate these fragments then?

HELD BÉID THA FRYA

HJRA HELD.DRVNK BJADA

FOR HJARA AJNE HELD

HELD. ENDE FON ’T BOK.

ALLE GOD MINNANDA FRYAS BERN SY HELD

ALLE AFTA FRYAS HELD

etcetera.

Are you suggesting there is no relation between Heil! (common benediction before 1945) and heilig?

HJRA HELD.DRVNK BJADA

2. Allera mannalik mêi-t wif sinra kêsa frêja aend ek toghater mêi efter hjra helddrvnk bjada thêr hju minth.

2. Every man may seek the wife of his choice, and every woman may bestow her hand on him whom she loves.

FOR HJARA AJNE HELD

To hinkande vr byde syda, to mâlande her vm sêda ner vm plêga, hit ne sy that et wêre for hjara ajne held.

wavering between the two parties, paying no regard to laws or customs except where they suited their own interests.

ALLE AFTA FRYAS HELD

All legitimate Fryans, praise.

ALLE GOD MINNANDA FRYAS BERN SY HELD -

all go(e)d minnende kinderen van Frya, hulde

all go(o)d loving children of Frya, praise

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

... whether there is any archaeology that supports the OLB being factual?

There is no good evidence against the manuscript's authenticity.

So if it would indeed be a 13th century copy (or a copy there-of), it is most significant.

If it was fake (19th century concoction) this should be really easy to prove.

That there still is no good proof for that, says enough.

And that people did not want to accept it as authentic is understandable, because it could create cultural (political) instability and chaos.

The book has anarchistic (and surely anti-religious!) elements.

That explains why the discussion has been highly emotional (and therefore irrational) at times.

[Abramelin]

Not that I don't appreciate the linguistic argument being played out in this thread (and it's predecessor), but I have to ask whether there is any archaeology that supports the OLB being factual?

After all, it is via archaeological support that we validate the accuracy and factual nature of other allegedly ancient tomes.

Heh, that is what I have been after for 2 years now.

[Abramelin]

Hulde = praise

No relationship with 'holy':

http://www.etymologi...trefwoord/hulde

Heil:

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/heil

Heilig:

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/heilig

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

HJRA HELD.DRVNK BJADA

2. Allera mannalik mêi-t wif sinra kêsa frêja aend ek toghater mêi efter hjra helddrvnk bjada thêr hju minth.

2. Every man may seek the wife of his choice, and every woman may bestow her hand on him whom she loves.

What?!

it simply means "haar heildronk bieden".

FOR HJARA AJNE HELD

hit ne sy that et wêre for hjara ajne held.

except where they suited their own interests.

voor haar eigen heil/ behoud

ALLE AFTA FRYAS HELD

All legitimate Fryans, praise.

ALLE GOD MINNANDA FRYAS BERN SY HELD -

all go(e)d minnende kinderen van Frya, hulde

all go(o)d loving children of Frya, praise

... heil/ behouden!

Edited May 19, 2012 by Otharus

[Otharus]

Hulde = praise

LOL

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

[Abramelin]

What?!

it simply means "haar heildronk bieden".

voor haar eigen heil/ behoud

... heil/ behoud!

Good, so nothing HOLY, again.

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

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

LOL

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

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

Huilen = to weep

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

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

Edited May 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

As for archaeological evidence:

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

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

[Otharus]

Good, so nothing HOLY, again.

Use your brain Abe.

HEIL-IG

[Abramelin]

Use your brain Abe.

HEIL-IG

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

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

I assume these guys did use their brains, lol.

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

As for archaeological evidence:

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

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

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

[Otharus]

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

If your links don't explain it, they are crap.

It is too obvious.

I can't believe that you really don't see it.

[Otharus]

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

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

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

Edited May 19, 2012 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

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

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

[Abramelin]

If your links don't explain it, they are crap.

It is too obvious.

I can't believe that you really don't see it.

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

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

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

.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Leonardo]

There is no good evidence against the manuscript's authenticity.

So if it would indeed be a 13th century copy (or a copy there-of), it is most significant.

If it was fake (19th century concoction) this should be really easy to prove.

That there still is no good proof for that, says enough.

And that people did not want to accept it as authentic is understandable, because it could create cultural (political) instability and chaos.

The book has anarchistic (and surely anti-religious!) elements.

That explains why the discussion has been highly emotional (and therefore irrational) at times.

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

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