Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

That is not what Delahaye or Van Gorp suggested.

Straw man fallacy.

Van Gorp AND Delahaye did suggest just that.

But do you or Van Gorp know what name the Frisians used for 'Ireland'?

.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

Van Gorp AND Delahaye did suggest just that.

No, this was about whether Charlemagne had had his palace in Nijmegen or not.

And earlier we have discussed Willibrord myth.

If only Delahayes claims about Nijmegen and Willibrord were right, he deserves rehabilitation.

[Abramelin]

No, this was about whether Charlemagne had had his palace in Nijmegen or not.

And earlier we have discussed Willibrord myth.

If only Delahayes claims about Nijmegen and Willibrord were right, he deserves rehabilitation.

I remember Van Gorp asking me if I really knew the history of the Netherlands.

He has also talked about that period, 200-1000 AD. He keeps going on about it, as though it has any relevance to the OLB story.

And, btw, Nijmegen and Willibrord IS about that period.

True or not, it has nothing to do with the OLB.

[Van Gorp]

No, this was about whether Charlemagne had had his palace in Nijmegen or not.

And earlier we have discussed Willibrord myth.

If only Delahayes claims about Nijmegen and Willibrord were right, he deserves rehabilitation.

Hi Otharus,

I appreciate your openess on this and I saw the information you allready shared on these subjects.

I think it's refreshing and most relevant, and still wonder why some views on this are labeled as 'irrelevant' if you see what other stuff passed the revue.

[Otharus]

I think it's refreshing and most relevant, and still wonder why some views on this are labeled as 'irrelevant' if you see what other stuff passed the revue.

Yes I think so too.

Typical for Abramelin to label arguments he doesn't like as irrelevant or child's play.

[Otharus]

Sidon never changed into Zion/Sion, or visa versa,

I just want to say this: juggling words and adding and deleting letters from a word to prove a point is kid's play.

It has nothing to do with real linguistics and etymology.

It is obvious that Zionists will not like the idea that their name has its origin in (or is linked to) Sidon in Lebanon.

Here are some arguments why Sidon and Sion/Zion may be related:

1. The etymology of the word Zion is uncertain. wiki/Zion

2. Sidon has been inhabited since very early in prehistory. [...] It was one of the most important Phoenician cities, and may have been the oldest. From here, and other ports, a great Mediterranean commercial empire was founded. wiki/Sidon

3. There are many examples of toponyms having the same origin or being named after older ones.

4. The 'd' between vowels can easily disappear.

Example:

pion zn. ‘schaakstuk’ [...] oorspr. ‘infanterist, voetknecht’ [ca. 1180; TLF], ontwikkeld uit middeleeuws Latijn pedo (genitief pedonis) ‘infanterist, voetknecht’, een afleiding van klassiek Latijn pēs (genitief pedis) ‘voet’ [...] etymologiebank/pion

(chess piece pawn - dutch: pion - is derived from Latin pedon)

Edited November 12, 2012 by Otharus

[NO-ID-EA]

Lamberth whoever he was still has that central name which keeps coming up L-Amber-th . i am only wildly speculating i know ,but although the sikh's only got their religion recognised late , how long does it take for a religion to be recognised as such while it is growing

if sikhs were part of the Kshatriya caste who were the noble warriors , the sikh religion says their members should be religious warriors , if Lamberth is a leader , could they be Sikh-lamberths , sicampers , and also siccambri

[Abramelin]

Yes I think so too.

Typical for Abramelin to label arguments he doesn't like as irrelevant or child's play.

OK, suppose Delahaye will be proven right, and that Dutch historical events and places between around 200 and 1000 CE were actually events and place in Belgium and Northern France, then you please tell me how that would prove the OLB narrative which was first put onto paper in the 6th century BCE. a story that ended somewhere in the first decade BCE.

=

And adding and subtracting letters to words is maybe a nice passtime, but you will need more than that.

If you are serious, that is.

.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

It is obvious that Zionists will not like the idea that their name has its origin in (or is linked to) Sidon in Lebanon.

Here are some arguments why Sidon and Sion/Zion may be related:

1. The etymology of the word Zion is uncertain. wiki/Zion

2. Sidon has been inhabited since very early in prehistory. [...] It was one of the most important Phoenician cities, and may have been the oldest. From here, and other ports, a great Mediterranean commercial empire was founded. wiki/Sidon

3. There are many examples of toponyms having the same origin or being named after older ones.

4. The 'd' between vowels can easily disappear.

Example:

pion zn. ‘schaakstuk’ [...] oorspr. ‘infanterist, voetknecht’ [ca. 1180; TLF], ontwikkeld uit middeleeuws Latijn pedo (genitief pedonis) ‘infanterist, voetknecht’, een afleiding van klassiek Latijn pēs (genitief pedis) ‘voet’ [...] etymologiebank/pion

(chess piece pawn - dutch: pion - is derived from Latin pedon)

And I added a piece from Caesar's Bello Gallico,where he mentions the Sedunii living near the Upper Rhone, and whose capital's name later changed into Sion.

So there really was a tribe with a name very similar to 'Sidon', and it just could be that they did travel from the Med, up the Rhone, to where Caesar finally met them.

And the etymology of 'Zion' may be uncertain, but that doesn't mean you can simply add a -D- to make it look like Sidon.

"If Semitic, it may be derived from the Hebrew root ''ṣiyyôn ("castle") or the Hebrew ṣiyya ("dry land," Jeremiah 51:43). A non-Semitic relationship to the Hurrian word šeya ("river" or "brook") has also been suggested"

,

Btw, this whole thing started because you added more importance to that fake Priory of Sion than necessary.

This apparently didn't please you:

Why don't you want to go for the most plausible option: the Golar were Jews in exile, the GOLA, as they were called in Hebrew, who lived in Sidon, had adopted the Phoenician creed, and traveled along with them to settle in Marseille, like they settled all along the Mediterranean.

At least it's historically right, the name is right, they did settle in Marseille, they were priests, and so on.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Lamberth whoever he was still has that central name which keeps coming up L-Amber-th . i am only wildly speculating i know ,but although the sikh's only got their religion recognised late , how long does it take for a religion to be recognised as such while it is growing

if sikhs were part of the Kshatriya caste who were the noble warriors , the sikh religion says their members should be religious warriors , if Lamberth is a leader , could they be Sikh-lamberths , sicampers , and also siccambri

Do I get it right, and are you suggesting the Sicambri might have been Sikhs or visa versa?

The OLB word is Sekampar, btw.

.

[Otharus]

OK, suppose Delahaye will be proven right, and that Dutch historical events and places between around 200 and 1000 CE were actually events and place in Belgium and Northern France, then you please tell me how that would prove the OLB narrative which was first put onto paper in the 6th century BCE. a story that ended somewhere in the first decade BCE.

It would put the so called Frisian 'fantastic' historiography (Van Scharle and others) in a different light, which would put the OLB in a different light.

[Otharus]

And I added a piece from Caesar's Bello Gallico,where he mentions the Sedunii living near the Upper Rhone, and whose capital's name later changed into Sion.

There you have it.

If SEDUN can change into SION, then even more obviously, so can SIDON.

And the etymology of 'Zion' may be uncertain, but that doesn't mean you can simply add a -D- to make it look like Sidon.

"If Semitic, it may be derived from the Hebrew root ''ṣiyyôn ("castle") or the Hebrew ṣiyya ("dry land," Jeremiah 51:43). A non-Semitic relationship to the Hurrian word šeya ("river" or "brook") has also been suggested"

Note the underlinings. Your official etymologists are merely guessing.

I don't simply add a D to SION, I leave out the one from SIDON, and I demonstrated why that is valid, with the PEDON - PION example.

If we can practice alternative history here, I donot see why we cannot include alternative etymology.

Btw, this whole thing started because you added more importance to that fake Priory of Sion than necessary.

Learn to read.

"Priory of Sion" is a hoax created in 1956 and used in the Davinci Code, but the term is possibly, partly inspired by the OLB term "PRESTERA SÍDON.IS".

It is at least remarkable that both PS were located in France.

[Otharus]

the Golar (not Golen) were Jews in exile, the GOLA, as they were called in Hebrew, who lived in Sidon, had adopted the Phoenician creed, and traveled along with them to settle in Marseille, like they settled all along the Mediterranean.

At least it's historically right, the name is right, they did settle in Marseille, they were priests, and so on.

When was this and what is your exact source?

[Abramelin]

It would put the so called Frisian 'fantastic' historiography (Van Scharle and others) in a different light, which would put the OLB in a different light.

Can you give one example of how that would change the way we now view the works of many Frisian historiographers?

.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

When was this and what is your exact source?

I have posted about that in part -1- of this thread ( and I will try to find it again / I also remember posting Hebrew words ending in -GAL, meaning some type of 'rooster' or chicken..).

Btw, I just found this, a way of reasoning using the Bible as a 'history book' :

The syllable GL occurs often in Hebrew, with various vowel sounds. As previously mentioned, vowels were not written in ancient Hebrew, therefore words vary a great deal, but the two basic consonants remain the same. We may compare Gilead and Galilee, both of the same origin. The Hebrews who were transported into captivity by the Assyrians and Babylonians referred to themselves as gola or galut, both meaning exiles. The word Celt obviously comes from the same source, for a hard "g" easily becomes a "c". Consider the other Celts of the British Isles, who speak Gaelic even to this day, and who are known as Gaels. The name "Portugal" means Port of the Gaul. Strong's Concordance states that "captivity" can be rendered by gola, galah, and galuwth, the latter being close to "Galatians".

Justin, the Roman historian of the 3rd century AD, stated that the Gauls claimed an origin from Greece. He said that they took possession of those parts where New Carthage stands (Cartagena, Spain) and passed from thence into Gallaecia (Galicia, NW Spain). It is well known that Celtic peoples inhabited these parts, and before this colonies were established by Phoenician and Hebrew mariners who traded extensively in the Mediterranean. There was a large Israelitish element in the Phoenicians, notably of the tribe of Dan. Deborah the prophetess complained that Dan did not take part in the wars between the tribes in the time of the Judges, because they had taken to their ships and were absent from their Palestinian territory.

Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? (Judges 5:17)

Dan's territory bordered that of the Phoenicians, so it is not inconceivable that they would have joined with them in sea-faring enterprises. The Phoenicians were credited with establishing Massilia (Marseilles) as one of the oldest ports in the south of France, so there is probably an element of Dan in that area.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/israelremnant.html

[Abramelin]

This I posted before, but somehow it won't show up in a search:

WHO WERE THE PHOENICIANS ACCORDING TO HERODOTUS AND DIODORUS SICULUS?

We have seen that Aziru mentioned in the el–Amarna tablets is the

Israelite tribe of Asher, and that this tribe conquered the region of Sidon. We

have shown that the Exodus occurred in c. 1446 B. C. Therefore the invasion

of Canaan by the Israelites (the destruction of Jericho) began c. 1406 B. C.,

while the beginning of the separate tribal wars was c. 1376 B. C., namely in

the period of the el–Amarna tablets. The region of Sidon, which is considered

a Canaanite–Phoenician region, since the Israelites had supposedly not

succeeded in conquering it, became in fact an Israelite region during the

el–Amarna period. Hence, if the Greeks called this region "Phoenicia", and

as seen above, this must have been after the conquest of Aziru.

-

In another paragraph14 Herodotus tells us that: "This is a sea by itself (i.

e. the Caspian sea –N. G.) not joined to the other sea. For that whereon the

Greeks sail, and the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles, which they call the

Atlantic, and the Red Sea are all one.". We have already noted the paragraph:

". the second (peninsula–N. G.) beginning with Persia stretches to the Red

Sea..." (Iv 39).

It is evident from the above paragraphs that by "Red Sea" or "Southern

Sea" (Rawlinson translates "Erythraean Sea") Herodotus means the sea

around the Arabian peninsula, i. e. today's Persian Gulf and Red Sea. If,

according to him, the Phoenicians came from the Red Sea, we may assume

that they could have come from any place along it, i. e. from Egypt to the

Persian Gulf.15

As already noted, if Herodotus includes the Israelites under another name

(and this must be assumed since he specifies the nations living in th entire

region) then it could only be under that of Phoenicians. According to him,

the Phoenicians came from the Red Sea area which we have seen he includes

both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf areas of today, whereas the Bible

clearly states the Israelites came to Canaan from the desert of Sinai where

they had gone after the Exodus. These statements taken together appear to

corroborate our assumption that Herodotus refers to the Israelites by the

term Phoenicians.16

-

In an interesting aside Herodotus (II, 104) notes that: "The Colchians

and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the

first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine

acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians...

Those Phoenicians who hold intercourse with Hellas cease to imitate the

Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children".

We may conclude therefore, that Herodotus envisaged two kinds of

Phoenicians 1. Those who hold intercourse with the Greeks and do not imitate

the Egyptians. 2. The other Phoenicians who do imitate the Egyptians, but

do not hold intercourse with the Greeks.

-

In this account he draws our attention in fact to his statement (XI, 3)

about the group of aliens who left Egypt (not Phoenicia) with Cadmus. By

stressing that "these Phoenicians are those who sailed..."etc. he differentiates

them from those Phoenicians who did not sail with Cadmus and remained

behind in Egypt (not Phoenicia). As Diodorus tells it those Phoenicians who

sailed with Cadmus were "the most outstanding and active among them..."

(i. e. the aliens – N. G.). It is obvious, therefore, that the Phoenicians who

did not sail with Cadmus and remained in Egypt were "the greater number"

of the aliens who according to Diodorus were led by Moses to Judaea. Let

us not forget that Diodorus tells us this as a "summary account of the

establishment of the nation (Jewish –N. G) from the origins".

-

We have now seen that if Herodotus tells us anything about

the Israelites it must be looked for under the term "Phoenicians". When

Diodorus gives a summary account of the Jewish origins, he describes them

as aliens in Egypt, of whom "the most outstanding and active among them"

are referred to as Phoenicians. We may therefore definitely conclude that the

term "Phoenicians" is the Greek name for the nation of Israel.

http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/wp-content/uploads/book/phenicos_new%20(2)_p175-p180.pdf

http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/

http://www.whowereth.../free-chapters/

====

THE PHILISTINES AND THE "SEA PEOPLES" NOT

THE SAME ENTITY

http://www.whowereth...SAME ENTITY.pdf

.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Never read all of this professor, but I think I should:

http://www.whowereth.../free-chapters/

COLONIES AND PLACE NAMES

http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/wp-content/uploads/book/phenicos_new%20%282%29_p273-p281.pdf

CONCLUSION

http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/wp-content/uploads/book/phenicos_new%20%282%29_p287-p288.pdf

From this pdf

SPARTA

http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/wp-content/uploads/book/phenicos_new%20%282%29_p283-p286.pdf

Prof. Slouschz was led to conclude that because of their identical

characteristics the so–called Phoenicians and the Hebrews in the days of the

Judges formed a single ethnic group.14 On the other hand he also interpreted

the biblical verse "Asher lo horish' the inhabitants of Sidon" etc. as meaning

Asher did not conquer these cities. However since the town of Tyre is not

mentioned in the list of towns that Asher did not "lehorish" Prof. Slouschz

concluded15 that Tyre was indeed conquered by the Israelites while Sidon

was not conquered. This inevitably led him to assume that the Israelites and

"Phoenicians" were two different nations and that the many similarities

between them resulted because the two nations belonged to a single ethnic

group, which group was part of the Benei Kedem (children of the East). He

thinks that some of the Hebrews joined with the Phoenicians to form a new

race which he labels"Phoenician–Hebrews", with an identical language, script,

religion and a homogeneous culture, this new race of "Hebrew–Phoenicians"

set out on its travels throughout the Mediterranean and practised commerce

and established colonies. The religion of these Hebrew–Phoenicians was

primitively Jewish notably different from the Jewish religion after the Exile

(The Ezra period).16

I consider Prof. Slouschz to have been mistaken in his interpretation

of the particular biblical verse by his assuming that the Israelites did not

conquer Sidon; and this led him to the conclusion that the "Phoenicians"

and the "Israelites" were two different nations.

Slouschz is by no means not the only scholar to point to the similarities

between the so–called Phoenicians and the Israelites. Most scholars in fact do

so, as discussed in previous chapters.

.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Phoenicians are Jews

The next is an absolutely horrible translation from Russian, but it appears to support Ganor's theory.

This text is a summary of the Russian text http://www.proza.ru/2007/09/02/100

http://www.proza.ru/2009/06/24/231

[Otharus]

Can you give one example of how that would change the way we now view the works of many Frisian historiographers?

Good question.

Yes, I think I can give several examples.

Because this is a very important issue, I will take some time to collect the exact references.

[Otharus]

Reconstruction of words in RUN-script OLB (from page 46).

Edited November 12, 2012 by Otharus

[Otharus]

The "run"-script has always been considered as typical 19th century, but this is not at all evident.

Specially the F is not like any Dutch handwriting I have ever seen.

It actually looks more like a Greek Phi.

For some letters it is obvious that they look like the Greek version, for example, K, U and T.

But if you have a better look at the L, you can see how it may have evolved (through the 'run'-version) into the Greek Lambda.

So:

Jol-F => run-F => Greek F

Jol-L => run-L => Greek L

This trick does not apply for all letters, but that it does for some of them is, at least, remarkable.

===

Edit: after I posted I noticed that the Greek L is a mirrored version of the L that I made, based on the run-L (which is like the traditional capital L).

I may be slightly dyslectic after all...

Edited November 13, 2012 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

Reconstruction of words in RUN-script OLB (from page 46).

God, that must have been a lot of work, all that copy and paste, lol !

[Abramelin]

Hja tham thêr saton vppa êlanda wrdon Lêtne hêten, thrvchdam hja mêst al vrlêten lêvadon.

Alle strând aend skor hêmar fon-a Dênemarka alont thêre Saendfal nw Skelda wrdon Stjurar, Sêkaempar aend Angelara hêton.

Angelara sâ hêton mân to fora tha butafiskar vmbe that hja alan mith angel jefta kol fiskton aend nimmer nên netum.

Thêra thêr thâna til tha hêinde Krêkalânda sâton, wrdon blât Kâd-hêmar hêten, thrvch tham hja ninmerthe buta foron.

(Sandbach's translation, but improved by me: )

Those who were 'seated' on islands were called Lêtne, because they lived an isolated life.

All those who had their homes on beaches and shores between Denmark and the Sandval, now the Scheldt, were called Stiurar, Sêkaempar, and Angelara.

The Angelara were men heretofor called the Butafiskar* because they only fished with hooks or kol ** and never nets'.

From there to the near Krekalands the inhabitants were merely@ called Kadhemers ("Kâd-hêmar"), because they never fared outside***.

* buta = here: without (nets)

** kol: fish gear to catch cod, consisting of a long line that is provided with angle and plummet.

http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...=WNT&id=M034627

*** buta - here: outside (DU: 'buiten')

For 'buta':

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

@ blât = here: merely

And now compare with Sandbach's translation:

Those who lived in the islands were called Letten, because they lived an isolated life.

All those who lived between Denmark and the Sandval, now the Scheldt, were called Stuurlieden (pilots), Zeekampers (naval men), and Angelaren (fishermen).

The Angelaren were men who fished in the sea, and were so named because they used lines and hooks instead of nets.

From there to the nearest part of Krekaland the inhabitants were called Kadhemers, because they never went to sea but remained ashore.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#au

Most consider the near Krekalands to be Italy. That would mean that the Kadhemar lived between the North Sea and Italy, so how could they have been Phoenicians (who were famous as sailors, btw) ; it also has nothing to do with anything Crete in the quote above:

Kadhemers, The inhabitants of the north part of Crete who never went to sea. A dweller near the coast. A Phoenician.

Kadmus, A legendary Phoenician who is traditionally credited with bringing the alphabet to Greece.

http://earth-history...ra-glossary.htm

The "Kâd-hêmar" have been discused before:

http://www.unexplain...65#entry4041957

(I should add that later on - the story of Nep Tunis in the Med http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#ax - kâd-hêmar is simply translated as 'inhabitants on the coast', but still nothing to do with Phoenicians)

.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

The "run"-script has always been considered as typical 19th century, but this is not at all evident.

Specially the F is not like any Dutch handwriting I have ever seen.

It actually looks more like a Greek Phi.

For some letters it is obvious that they look like the Greek version, for example, K, U and T.

But if you have a better look at the L, you can see how it may have evolved (through the 'run'-version) into the Greek Lambda.

So:

Jol-F => run-F => Greek F

Jol-L => run-L => Greek L

This trick does not apply for all letters, but that it does for some of them is, at least, remarkable.

===

Edit: after I posted I noticed that the Greek L is a mirrored version of the L that I made, based on the run-L (which is like the traditional capital L).

I may be slightly dyslectic after all...

Because of the crease in the paper, part of the letter -F- is hidden, but you can still see something extra:

And it is not a dot/period separating the letters because that one is clearly visible on the right.

+++++

EDIT:

Classic Decorated Baroque Vector Letter Calligraphy F :

http://www.spiderpic.com/stock-photos/shutterstock/47456800-classic-decorated-baroque-vector-letter-calligraphy-f-cat-calligramm

.

.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Hja tham thêr saton vppa êlanda wrdon Lêtne hêten, thrvchdam hja mêst al vrlêten lêvadon.

Alle strând aend skor hêmar fon-a Dênemarka alont thêre Saendfal nw Skelda wrdon Stjurar, Sêkaempar aend Angelara hêton.

Angelara sâ hêton mân to fora tha butafiskar vmbe that hja alan mith angel jefta kol fiskton aend nimmer nên netum.

Thêra thêr thâna til tha hêinde Krêkalânda sâton, wrdon blât Kâd-hêmar hêten, thrvch tham hja ninmerthe buta foron.

(Sandbach's translation, but improved by me: )

Those who were 'seated' on islands were called Lêtne, because they lived an isolated life.

All those who had their homes on beaches and shores between Denmark and the Sandval, now the Scheldt, were called Stiurar, Sêkaempar, and Angelara.

The Angelara were men heretofor called the Butafiskar* because they only fished with hooks or kol ** and never nets'.

From there to the near Krekalands the inhabitants were merely@ called Kadhemers ("Kâd-hêmar"), because they never fared outside***.

* buta = here: without (nets)

** kol: fish gear to catch cod, consisting of a long line that is provided with angle and plummet.

http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...=WNT&id=M034627

*** buta - here: outside (DU: 'buiten')

For 'buta':

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

@ blât = here: merely

And now compare with Sandbach's translation:

Those who lived in the islands were called Letten, because they lived an isolated life.

All those who lived between Denmark and the Sandval, now the Scheldt, were called Stuurlieden (pilots), Zeekampers (naval men), and Angelaren (fishermen).

The Angelaren were men who fished in the sea, and were so named because they used lines and hooks instead of nets.

From there to the nearest part of Krekaland the inhabitants were called Kadhemers, because they never went to sea but remained ashore.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#au

The OLB clearly gives an explanation for the former name of the Angelara, "Butafiska" : they never used nets, or they fished without nets.

But I had to think of something else.

In Dutch we have the word 'binnenvisser', or someone who catches fish in lakes and rivers and such.

'Binnen' means 'inside', and the opposite is 'buiten' or 'outside' (and 'without').

One could form the word 'buitenvisser' or in old Dutch-ish, "buitenvisscher". That would be someone who fishes at sea.

Butafiska >> buitenvisser >> fisherman at sea

Anyway, Butafiska appears to be the former name of the Angelara ("Anglers").

Oh, and in the quote of the OLB you will read "to fora" which is indeed Old Frisian for 'before'.

In modern Dutch that would be "te voren"

****

EDIT:

I found a German surname that is very similar to this BUTAFISKA:

Bütefisch , also spelled as Buetefisch.

When you use Google Translator, you get "butler fish", lol. Does anyone know what that is??

.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Abramelin