19 November 2011

Forum # 14 (nov. 9 - 20, 2011)

Posted 09 November 2011 - 09:00 PM
Knul, on 09 November 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:
You reject all evidence, that the OLB is a hoax.

What evidence?

I have asked you several times to summarise or reproduce it, so the English readers can evaluate it.

That should be easy if it is as obvious as you suggest.

I don't think you really understand this 'evidence' yourself.

Abe honestly admitted that he doesn't, he left it to you to answer my question.

But you stay silent.

If you would summarise this so-called evidence (in your own words) I can translate it for the forum.

### Posted 09 November 2011 - 10:54 PM
Knul, on 09 November 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:
Just mention me one Oldfrisian source with modern English words/expressions like yes, look, run away, merry-merry.

Alleramaennelik jef to an mery mery fru aend bly, aend nimman nêde diger than to âkane sina nocht.

The same could be said about Dutch words and expressions, but this will not be understood by English speakers, like dewijl = thawhila, afsken = ofschoon, etc.

Why do you think that those 'modern' (?) English words can't have their origin in Oldfrisian?
The correct fragment is:


Where do you think the name Merie/ Marie/ Maria/ Mary/ Mery comes from?

Like all names, it originally had a meaning.

Obviously, this is a very old name and therefore a very old word.

This is just one example.

In general my answer is: we don't know how old those words really are.

They are as old as the oldest source we find of them.

### Posted 10 November 2011 - 08:06 PM
Abramelin, on 10 November 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:
I wonder... had Joast Halbertsma or an Over de Linden or whoever ever read the Qur'an?

Well, I've read Kader Abdolah's translation.
I thought that (Ad- or Ath-people) was interesting too, and there are more possible 'co-incidences' (but sorry, no prioritime).

### Posted 11 November 2011 - 09:43 AM
Knul, on 09 November 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:
... modern English words/expressions like yes, look, run away, merry-merry. ...
The same could be said about Dutch words and expressions... like dewijl = thawhila, afsken = ofschoon, etc.

The problem with this 'proof' is that we don't actually know how old or modern these words are.

Can you prove they are modern?

What I do know is that our modern written languages have adapted more to the (much older!) spoken language.

The reason why the language of the OLB seems modern, is that it is written down as if it were spoken, much different from the classical old (more formal) texts that we are used to.

While written language could always be spoken (read aloud), spoken language was not always written down.

There still is 'street language' that is hardly ever written down.

### Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:18 AM
Knul, on 09 November 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:
... modern English words/expressions like yes...

The word "JES" is also part of the name "JES.US" [138/08].

### Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:28 AM
Knul, on 09 November 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:
... modern English words/expressions like ... run away...

From the Germanic root *rūnō. Cognate with the Old Saxon rūna, Old High German rūna (German Raun), Old Norse rún, and Gothic (rūna).

### Posted 11 November 2011 - 01:30 PM
Knul, on 11 November 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:
Otharus, so you think jes means Jessos (Jezus) in these lines?

"Jessos" is an invention by Ottema and "Jezus" is your (and Jensma's) interpretation.
In the manuscript it is "JES.US" (Jes-us, pronounced Yes-us).

By the way, the normal Oldfrisian word is ja, which occurs in the OLB as well.

There are many examples (in any language) of different words having the same meaning.

### Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:26 AM

Knul, on 14 November 2011 - 01:23 AM, said:
e. No explanation has been given for the fact, that Cornelis over de Linden communicated the OLB immediately after the death of Stadermann and that he did not even mention this name in his testament for Cornelis III.

Several other explanations are possible, like:
- It's a coincidence.
- It reminded Cornelis of his own mortality and he wanted to know what the manuscript was about before he died.
- Cornelis had hoped that Stadermann could help him translate the manuscript, either himself or by introducing him to someone else, or that he could help him find a more helpful book about Oldfrisian.

That he didn't mention Stadermann in his testament can also be explained by the fact that your theory is nonsense.

### Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:01 AM
Knul, on 11 November 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:
Very true, but in the case of te OLB we deal with written language.

The Oldfrisian laws are from a very different (formal) nature, not meant to be read aloud to the family around the fire on a cold dark winter evening, like some parts of the OLB.

### Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:23 AM
Abramelin, on 12 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:
The way you think about etymology appears to me you have some sort of... disrespect for that 'science'. [...] It is a real science.

So 'science' is your religion, Abe?

Scientists don't agree about everything and theories that have been accepted for a long time are sometimes totally rejected later.

Medicine and Economy are 'sciences' too and they produce an incredible amount of nonsense.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 15 November 2011 - 02:13 PM
I glance at this debate every few days but I just could not resist this one. If I understand the discussion correctly, Knul and Abramelin keep on saying that the English words in the Oera Linda Book are proof that the Oera Linda Book is a hoax. If anything, I would rather say they are, in fact, proof of its authenticity (Knul, admittedly, refers to “Modern English”).

Our “trusty” Wikipedia has the following to say:

“Old Frisian is a West Germanic language spoken between the 8th and 16th centuries in the area between the Rhine and Weser on the European North Sea coast. The Frisian settlers on the coast of South Jutland (today's Northern Friesland) also spoke Old Frisian but no medieval texts of this area are known. The language of the earlier inhabitants of the region between the Zuiderzee and Ems River (the Frisians famously mentioned by Tacitus – AD 56 to AD 117) is attested in only a few personal names and place-names. Old Frisian evolved into Middle Frisian, spoken from the 16th to the 19th century.

“In the early Middle Ages, Frisia stretched from the area around Bruges, in what is now Belgium, to the Weser River, in northern Germany. At the time, the Frisian language was spoken along the entire southern North Sea coast. This region is referred to as Greater Frisia or Frisia Magna, and many of the areas within it still treasure their Frisian heritage. However by 1300, their territory had been pushed back to the Zuiderzee (now the IJsselmeer), and the Frisian language survives along the coast only as a substrate.

“The people from what are today northern Germany and Denmark who settled in England from about 400 onwards came from the same regions and spoke more or less the same language as the people who lived in Frisia (as medieval Friesland is usually called to distinguish it from the present-day regions with that name). Hence, a close relationship exists between Old Frisian and Old English.

“Generally, Old Frisian phonologically resembles Old English. In particular, it shares the palatalisation of velar consonants also found in Old English. For example, whereas the closely related Old Saxon and Old Dutch retain the velar in dag, Old Frisian has dei and Old English has dæġ [dæj]. When followed by front vowels the Germanic /k/ softened to a /tʃ/ sound. The Old Frisian for church was tzirke or tzerke, in Old English it was ċiriċe [ˈtʃiritʃe], while Old Saxon and Old Dutch have the unpalatalised kirika. Another feature shared between the two is Anglo-Frisian brightening, which fronted a to e under some circumstances. In unstressed syllables, o merges into a, and i into e as in Old English.”
Etc. etc

From the above, it is realistic to accept that Old English developed out of Old Frisian. Yet, if one looks at a few language trees, the “experts” say that both developed in parallel from the old West Germanic language. So, somebody seems to be wrong. These same experts will have it that Afrikaans developed from Dutch and that Afrikaans and Flemish developed independently from one another. Yet, Afrikaans is much closer to Flemish than to Dutch. This tells me that these language experts are not always correct.

As for Knul’s attempt to prove that Halbertsma wrote the OLB: We have discussed this at length several months ago. In fact I showed that not even Ottema considered Halbertsma as a possibility. Now Knul comes with this “big revelation” as if no one in the Netherlands has ever considered Halbertsma. Over the last 140 years, and 17 months’ debate in this forum, nobody could prove that the OLB is a hoax. All the hoax theories are based on conjecture and by ignoring or denying the written statements, letters and other 19th century facts surrounding the book. I am yet to see a single proven fact that will support their theory. I am still baffled by the Dutch academics that are not even prepared to consider the fact that the OLB is true.

The proof of the Oera Linda lies in all the historical, archaeological and other scientific facts in the book that were not known in the 19th century. In the second edition of my book I have added many more of these facts. Unfortunately, this forum just ignores this overwhelming factual evidence as well, and continues to steer the discussion back to the language aspects. Abe and some other Dutch speaking people regard this as their strong point because, as a rule, no outsider should be able to challenge them on their own language. When people like me, who can read Dutch, point out the flaws in their arguments, they again simply ignore these and return to the language aspects. This has been the Dutch’s tactics for 140 years and people like Puzzler keep falling into the trap.

Lets face it guys, I have proven beyond doubt that the OLB is authentic. People like Jacques Fermaut who lectured French, Dutch and Latin and who has translated the OLB into French, agrees with me; so does Anthony Radford who wrote “From Goddess to King” and of course, Dr. JG Ottema who translated the OLB into Dutch. So, I believe I am in good company.

### Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:25 PM
Alewyn, on 15 November 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:
From the above, it is realistic to accept that Old English developed out of Old Frisian. Yet, if one looks at a few language trees, the “experts” say that both developed in parallel from the old West Germanic language. So, somebody seems to be wrong.

I think it's good to distinguish "Old-Frisian" as we know it (from the medieval laws) from the OLB language; proto-Frisian or Fryan?

The latter could in fact be the "old West Germanic language" of the "experts".

In that case they are right IMO: Old-English and Old-Frisian are cousins that both descend from 'Fryan'.

These same experts will have it that Afrikaans developed from Dutch and that Afrikaans and Flemish developed independently from one another. Yet, Afrikaans is much closer to Flemish than to Dutch.

Similarly, Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaans are cousins that evolved out of old-Dutch (or old-'Westfrisian').

This tells me that these language experts are not always correct.

That is, of course, a fact.

### Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:44 PM
Alewyn, on 15 November 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:
As for Knul’s attempt to prove that Halbertsma wrote the OLB: We have discussed this at length several months ago. In fact I showed that not even Ottema considered Halbertsma as a possibility. Now Knul comes with this “big revelation” as if no one in the Netherlands has ever considered Halbertsma.

Ottema, in fact (just like you and me), considered nobody as a possible 'hoaxer'.

More significantly, Dr. Jensma and other Frisian experts, who are much better informed (and also more benullig) than Knul, don't consider the possibility that Halbertsma was involved in any way.

Over the last 140 years, and 17 months’ debate in this forum, nobody could prove that the OLB is a hoax.

That is correct.

All the hoax theories are based on conjecture and by ignoring or denying the written statements, letters and other 19th century facts surrounding the book. I am yet to see a single proven fact that will support their theory. I am still baffled by the Dutch academics that are not even prepared to consider the fact that the OLB is true.

I have good hope that this will change some day.
Did Jensma comment on your book yet?

### Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:53 PM
Abramelin, on 15 November 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:
No Alewyn, it's different: it's about MODERN English words showing up in the OLB, that's English from about 15-1600 AD and onwards.

There were countless varieties in language and dialects.
The writing language has become more like the (most dominant) spoken language.
Fact is, that we don't know how 'modern' these words and expressions really are.

And something else: can you tell me why there is an obvious French/Latin loanword in the OLB, "prentar" ??

That "prentar" would be a French/Latin "loanword" is not obvious at all.

### Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:01 PM
Abramelin, on 15 November 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:
Everything that shows up in the OLB was known in the 19th century, and that's before the time the OLB was published. They used myths and legends from Frisians, Germans, Greeks, Romans and so on.

One example to refute this:

Apparently, nobody in the 19th century knew that (varieties of) WRALDA had been used in other Nordic cultures to refer to what we call God.

Wirth was the first (in the 1930s) to point this out.

Jensma has ignored this most relevant fact in his dissertation.

Also, there were many things 'known' in the 19th century that we now know to be nonsense. Howcome there's none of that in the OLB?

### Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:08 PM
Abramelin, on 15 November 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:
I have shown you and everyone that I can use my highschool knowlegde of Middle Dutch to translate a whole lot of the OLB text.

This proves nothing.
Icelandic children can read 1000 year old texts too.

Your belief that a language this old should be incomprehensible for us is based on a few hundred years of brainwashing (by the church). We were supposed to believe that our ancient ancestors were primitive barbarians.

### Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:13 PM
Abramelin, on 15 November 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:
"Prentar, nog op Texel een (stuurmans) leerling."

Why would sailors from Texel (with an ancient sailing tradition) borrow a word for that from the French?!

'Mieteren' is Westfrisian slang for 'to throw'. They didn't have to borrow this from Latin (mitere) either.

A shared common source is more likely.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 16 November 2011 - 06:34 AM
Alewyn, on 15 November 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:
Here is a little trick question for you: Why does the OLB not say anything about the Persians? After all, the “Gertmanne” did spend some 1224 years in the region. Give it your best shot.

Let me answer my own question as to why the Oera Linda Book does not refer to Persia or the Persians. Instead the book refers to the “Ira”

Original Fries (Tresoar)
“Biwesta Pangab ther sind tha Ira ieftha wranga,…”
“Therthrvch havon wi tha Ira and tha othera kenna lerth. Tha Ira ne sind nene ira mar goda minska ther nena bildon to leta nach onbidda…”

“To the west of the Pangab are the Ira, or Wranga, …”

“In that way we came to know the Ira and other people. The Ira are not savages, but good people, who neither pray to nor tolerate images…”

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

“The Sassanid Empire (also spelled Sasanid Empire, Sassanian Empire, or Sasanian Empire), known to its inhabitants as Ērānshahr and Ērān in Middle Persian and resulting in the New Persian terms Iranshahr and Iran, was the last pre-Islamic Persian Empire, ruled by the Sasanian Dynasty from 224 to 651.”

“The name "Iran" has been in use natively since the Sassanian era and came into use internationally in 1935, before which the country was known to the Western world as Persia”
“The term Ērān is found to refer to Iran in a 3rd century Sassanid inscription, and the Parthian inscription that accompanies it uses the Parthian term "aryān" in reference to Iranians.”

"However historically Iran has been referred to as Persia or similar (La Perse, Persien, Perzië, etc.) by the Western world, mainly due to the writings of Greek historians who called Iran Persēs (Πέρσης), meaning land of the Persians.”

So you see, before 1935, Iran (“the land of the Ira”) was known throughout the Western world as “Persia”. Yet, the OLB does not talk about the Persians, but rather about the Ira; the only West European source which called them by their ancient name. This also tells us that the name Ira or Iran goes back to before 300 BC and most likely to before 1500 BC when the Gertmanne arrived in the Punjab. This is much further back than the Sassanid Empire and even before the Greeks’ “Persia”.

To me this is further evidence that the OLB is authentic, but I suppose Abe will again say this was known in 19th century Holland.

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:19 AM
Abramelin, on 16 November 2011 - 12:59 AM, said:
Who cares about why?

Good example of your mentality: Just ignore things you don't understand.

And even Ottema translated it as "pilot's apprentice". APPRENTICE.

He did not:

de jongste scheepsjongens elk een derde deel

Zijn er ligtmatrozen verongelukt

(An 18th century term for this was "hooploper".)

Something to consider:
[OLB p.32]

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:38 AM
Abramelin, on 16 November 2011 - 01:05 AM, said:
Icelandic is a language of about a 1000 years old, and still taught in schools, because it is the language they use daily.

You think languages are as old as the oldest surviving written record of it.
They are of course much older than that and the result of a gradual evolutionary process.

I can read most of the OLB with only my knowledge of Middle Dutch

My point was that this does not prove anything.

Besides, you read the translation first.
You can't tell how much you would have understood without that.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 16 November 2011 - 09:00 AM
Abramelin, on 16 November 2011 - 01:42 AM, said:
I'd like to add: where is the geological proof lands rose up or submerged around that time? All these volcanoes erupting? Catastrophic floods? Fires burning for years? And all that in Europe, or around the North Sea or the Atlantic? In 2194 BC?

You want proof? Try this:

The extract of a paper written by Chun Chang Huang and others from the Department of Geography, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, Shaanxi in the People’s Republic of China in 2010, Extraordinary floods related to the climatic event at 4200 a BP on the Qishuihe River, middle reaches of the Yellow River, China,:

A paleo-hydrological study was carried out in the Qishuihe River valley in the middle reaches of the Yellow River.
The results show that successive floods occurred between 4300 and 4000 a BP in association with the abrupt climatic event of 4200 a BP. These overbank floods had the riverbank settlement inundated repeatedly.
The climatic event of 4200 a BP and the climatic decline at 3100 a BP were believed to be characterized by droughts previously. This work provides solid evidence that both severe droughts and extreme floods were parts of the climatic variability during abrupt climatic event and climatic decline in the semi-arid to sub-humid zones over the world

We also have ample archaeological evidence of ancient Chinese cultures that were destroyed in c. 2200 BC.

The Caribbean
Dr. Sander R. Scheffers of the School for Environmental Management and Science at Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia, and others, in an article, Tsunamis, hurricanes, the demise of coral reefs and shifts in pre-historic human populations in the Caribbean (Quaternary International, Volume 195, 15 February 2009, Pages 69-87):

Three extreme impacts with different magnitudes can be clearly distinguished. The youngest event occurred at approximately 500 BP, a second event at 3,100 BP, and the oldest at 4,200 BP (Scheffers, 2002; Scheffers et al. 2006).

Francisco Ruiz from the Department of Geodynamics and Palaeontology, University of Huelva, Avda, Spain, and others, noted in the research article, Evidence of high-energy events in the geological record: Mid-holocene evolution of the southwestern Doñana National Park (SW Spain) (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 229, Issue 3, 20 December 2005, Pages 212-229):

This was followed by a renewed phase of instability ( 4200–4100 cal. years BP) indicated by the presence of fine storm-lain deposits and thicker, probably tsunami-induced shelly deposits.

Sri Lanka
Ranasinghage, P. N et al in Signatures of Paleo-coastal Hazards in Back-barrier Environments of Eastern and Southeastern Sri Lanka (The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #NH21A-1397):

The most recent pre-2004 tsunami event likely occurred around 1000 yrs BP with the older events around 4200 yrs BP and 4900 yrs BP.

The ~ 4200 and ~ 4900 yrs BP events were recorded in multiple cores from Kirind and Vakarai as well as in cores from Hambantota by Jackson (2008).

Syria, Palestine, Iraq & Egypt
Prof Harvey Weiss, professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut (The Sciences, May/June 1996 P. 33,34)

Whether at Tell Leilan or Tell Taya, Chagar Bazar or Tell al-Hawa, the results told the same story: between 2200 and 1900 BC people fled the Habur and Assyrian plains en masse

In Egypt, the Old Kingdom, during which the great pyramids were built, gave way to the turmoil of the First Intermediate Period; in Palestine, Early Bronze Age towns were abandoned; in Mesopotamia Akkad collapsed and nomadic people made strange movements across and down the Euphrates and Tigris valleys.

Only decades after the city’s massive walls were raised, its religious quarter renovated and its grain production reorganized, Tell Leilan was suddenly abandoned. In our excavations, the collapsed remains of Akkadian buildings are covered with erosion deposits that show no trace of human activity

In collaboration with soil scientist and archaeologist Marie-Agnés Courty of the National Centre for Scientific Research in Paris, it was noted that the remains of the city (Tell Leilan) was covered with a thin layer of volcanic ash followed by some 200mm of fine sand. She found very little evidence of earthworm activity, which pointed to a prolonged period of aridity.

The Netherlands
Otto S. Knottnerus from Zuidbroek in the Netherlands wrote an article, Sea Level Rise as a Threat to Cultural Heritage, in the Wadden Sea Newsletter 2000 (No. 2). Of note was the following statement in the article:

Near Delfzijl (Netherlands), Neolithic settlers built a megalithic-chambered tomb about 3350 BC. After 2200 BC, the site disappeared under several feet of clay and peat

North Africa
(Mentioned earlier)
The Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in Germany, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Claussen, analyzed climate feedbacks from the last several thousand years as reported in ScienceDaily

Before that time, the Sahara was covered by annual grasses and low shrubs, as evidenced by fossilized pollen.
The transition to today's arid climate was not gradual, but occurred in two specific episodes. The first, which was less severe, occurred between 6,700 and 5,500 years ago. The second, which was brutal, lasted from 4,000 to 3,600 years ago. Summer temperatures increased sharply, and precipitation decreased, according to carbon-14 dating. This event devastated ancient civilizations and their socio-economic systems.
The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis.

In pre-historic times, Lake Yoa in North Eastern Chad was part of the greater Lake Megachad and then, about 4000 years ago, its waters suddenly turned salty (Scientific American, May 9, 2008: From Bountiful to Barren: Rainfall Decrease Left the Sahara Out to Dry - How a once-wet landscape became one of the world's great deserts. By Adam Hadhazy ).

This happened around the same time when the salt content of the ground increased at Tell Leilan in Syria, more than 2500 kilometres away. Scientists speculate that the cessation of fresh water recharge to the lake from rain or rivers and subsequent evaporation would have dramatically increased the salt content over the ensuing millennia. Archaeologists, however, noted that the salinity suddenly increased 4000 years ago. This was not a gradual process. Many of the lakes in North Africa today are salt-water lakes.

Do you still believe that the authors of the OLB dreamed up the catastrophe of 2193/12194 BC?

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:05 AM
Himmler apparently kept believing in OLB's authenticity till his death.
In the German speaking countries OLB is known as "Himmler's Bibel" (and this could very well be the reason why it is not popular there either...)

How did he know Wralda wasn't known to represent God in the 19th century? Because HE couldn't find an older source?

Obviously, your omniscient hoaxer was the only one who knew.
There has been an extensive discussion about OLB in the 19th century and nobody ever brought this most relevant fact up. That's how Wirth knew.

I'd like to tell you it was no one else but Puzzler who showed you it was known.

That's not correct. The very first time it was mentioned in this forum was in my post of 10 November 2010:

Otharus, on 10 November 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:
There has been talk about how much of what is in OLB was already known to the 19th century elite.
Jensma (p. 92-93 of "De Gemaskerde God"):

"WR.ALDA is the most explicit character in the whole OLB. His name, that is used 96 times, is a great find in itself. 'Wralda is Oldfrisian for 'world', but the point in the word makes it possible to read the name as 'Oer.alda' - the 'over-old one', and possibly also as 'Oeral.da' - 'where-all there' (omnipresent)." (improvised translation by me)

(original text:) "WR.ALDA is het meest uitgewerkte personage uit het hele Oera Linda-boek. Zijn naam, die maar liefst 96 keer wordt genoemd, is op zichzelf al een vondst van formaat. 'Wralda is Oudfries voor 'wereld', maar de punt in het woord (in het OLBees staat WR.ALDA) maakt dat de naam ook kan worden gelezen als 'Oer.alda' - de 'oeroude', en mogelijk ook nog eens als 'Oeral.da' - 'Overal aanwezig'."

What Jensma did not know - or maybe he deliberately ignored it - is that varieties of the word Wralda exist in old Nordic archaeology, mythology, poetry in a similar context; and it does not only mean world...

1. Frey or Freyr, the twin-brother of Freya (and associated with fertility) is refered to as "Veraldar God".
2. In old-Laplandic the term "Weralden Olma" refers to what we would call God or Allah.
3. The creation myth of the poetic Edda starts with "Ar Var Alda"; first was old-one (or big wave, see [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evE6aLg-_Q8"]video[/url]).
(4. I even dare suggest an etymological relationship between 'Alda' and 'Allah', but I don't even need this here to make my point.)

Prof. Dr. H. Wirth mentioned 1. and 2. in a newspaper article in 1925 (Leeuwarder Courant 31 october) and added:

"... the Ingvaeonic name for God, Wralda, that was not known to science in the time that the manuscript supposedly would have been created, and partly still isn't!" (improvised translation by me)

(original:) "... de Ingvaeonische naam voor God, Wralda, die in den tijd waarin het handschrift vervalscht zou moeten zijn, aan de wetenschap onbekend was en ten deele nog is!"

So if it takes almost 50 years for Dutch scholars to notice that Wralda does not only mean World, but in other old cultures was also used to refer to the oldest or most important deity or spirit, it is not likely that a few conspirors knew this and used it for their hoax. I find it reveiling that even present day Frisian expert Jensma did not seem to know this when he wrote his publications (or he ignored it, which would be even more suspect).

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:01 AM
cormac mac airt, on 16 November 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:
Better question is how do you explain the fact that the Israelites, even as a tribe, are attested c.1208 BC while the earliest for anything like Frisians in the area, via language (Proto-Germanic), only dates to c.750 BC at the earliest?

Because the number of accepted sources of 'Proto-Germanic' is more limited.

Besides, OLB is a 13th century copy of a collection of texts that was first compiled in the 6th century BC (with parts added later up until ca. 50 BC).

The first compilers of the book apparently had access to older sources (in their language), but we won't know what their language had been in the times described by their sources (like 2200 BC). Only that in 600 BC they had written sources about those times. How much of their sources at that time was fiction and how much was fact we won't know exactly, but if parts of it agree with other ancient sources and with archaeological and/or geological finds, that is enough reason to take it seriously.

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 11:13 AM
cormac mac airt, on 16 November 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:
So again, where's your evidence supporting the specific date of 2193/2194 BC?

This is also something I have a problem with accepting, specially in the sub-title of Alewyn's book: "The course of Eurasia after the night of Wednesday 21 October 2193 BC".

This level of specificity causes some resistance in me.

I'd say ca. 2200 BC or even ca. 2000 BC.

To come to an agreement (for now) that OLB might possibly be authentic (i.e. not a hoax) would already be a major step forward, as the path for scholars to start taking it seriously would finally be opened.

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:01 PM
Knul, on 16 November 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:
It has been widely accepted, that the OLB is a hoax. That is why scholars don't want to deal with the OLB. You refuse to read sources like Letterkundige Naoogst to convince yourself.

Did you know that it was once "widely accepted" that our economy would always keep growing and what happened to wise people who dared to challenge this belief?

You surely remember the once "widely accepted" ideas that the earth is flat and that the sun rotates around it.

I've seen enough of your 'evidence' to not feel like wasting my time on reading a book by the incredibly boring Halbertsma (who had no sense of humor or imagination).

Why don't you quote or summarize this evidence so the whole forum can read it?

If it's any good, I or Abe will translate it for you.

### Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:26 PM
Abramelin, on 16 November 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:
Pictet, Adolphe "Iren und Arier" Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 1858.

Nice find.

You might also be interested in the 19th-century theories about there being 'three races': white, black, yellow (Frya, Lyda, Finda).

It does not surprise me at all that much of what we read in an ancient manuscript was and is still living in our collective consciousness.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 16 November 2011 - 02:40 PM
Otharus, on 16 November 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:
Alewyn, didn't you send Jensma a copy of your book?
Did he ever comment on it?

Yes, more than a year ago.
At first I thought it would not be right to share his private e-mail dated 18 August 2010 to me. On reflection, however, I don’t think he would object. Here it is:

Dear Mister Raubenheimer,

Indeed, some three or four weeks ago, I received a copy of your book Survivors of the Great Tsunami. I apologize for not having written you before, but I want you to know that I really appreciated you donating me your book. Thank you very much for that.

In the meantime I have been reading your book also. I tried to do this as unprejudiced as possible, but, as you will know, I have been studying the Oera Linda Book for a couple of years myself and have written a study on it (2004) and also published a new edition (2006). In my view the OLB is a intelligently written, erudite, very subtle and multi-layered hoax originating from the 19th century. The plot of the book is that it wants to puzzle the reader, but only temporarily, in order to convince him that you should not take books like these all too literally. The book really is a literary master-work in its kind, as well as a 19th century comment on debates on religious fundamentalism.

The question now was whether your book would challenge me and convince me to admit my wrong. I am sorry to say that it did challenge me indeed, but it did not succeed in changing my views. I think your book stands in a long tradition of readers (and writers) who are taking the text of the book literally, or better: which take it for a factual description of some prehistoric reality (Herman Wirth's, Die Ura Linda Chronik from the 1930s has proven to be influential). In my view it obviously is not. You can set up a whole string of arguments to show that. For instance the letters used in the book are nothing but Roman capitals, the language used is a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch, full of 19th century words and references to nineteenth century persons and events; if you give the text a closer look you will see that the chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process, the text originally being a non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters. And so on, and so on.

You could have read all this and more in my book (De Gemaskerde god) as well as from the large body of literature on the subject which, ever since the book came about in the 1860s, has shown that the text simply cannot be true in the sense that it would be a factual description of a prehistoric society.

It your attempt to to prove that the OLB is a 'Rosetta Stone of European History', you are using methods which are mostly scientifical (instead of scholarly) by nature and so you take your 'prove' of the authenticity of the book from geology, historical geography, astrophysics and so on. I really regret that you did not give the text itself a closer look: why is this text written as it is written (even if it were to be an age-old text)?

I realize that it must have been an enormous effort for you to research this subject, to write the book and to have it published, and I would have liked to admit that my findings on the book are wrong. But regrettably for you I can't.

I wish all the best and thanks once again,

Goffe Jensma

### Posted 18 November 2011, 07:57 AM
Comments on Goffe Jensma's email to Alewyn Raubenheimer, dated 18-8-2010.

"I think your book stands in a long tradition of readers (and writers) who are taking the text of the book literally, or better: which take it for a factual description of some prehistoric reality (Herman Wirth's, Die Ura Linda Chronik from the 1930s has proven to be influential). In my view it obviously is not. You can set up a whole string of arguments to show that. For instance the letters used in the book are nothing but Roman capitals, the language used is a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch, full of 19th century words and references to nineteenth century persons and events; if you give the text a closer look you will see that the chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process, the text originally being a non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters. And so on, and so on."

So Jensma's main arguments to show that OLB has to be a hoax are:

1. The letters are "nothing but Roman capitals"

Apparently they are different from his expectation. How does this prove that OLB is fake? In fact they're not identical, but similar to Roman capitals, as well as to Greek capitals.

2. The language is "a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch"

Again, because the language is different from the expectation, based on what is known already, does not prove it's fake. As we have seen earlier in this thread there are no hard evidence examples of this. I would rather conclude that modern Dutch in some ways is more similar to Oldfrisian than modern "Frisian" is. The same can be said of modern English, German and the Scandinavian languages. Through the ages, the written languages have adapted more to the spoken language. Besides, parts of OLB are not at all that easy to translate.

3. It uses "19th century words and references to 19th century persons and events"

In this forum we have seen that there are no convincing examples of this. I have not read any in his book either. Someone who wants to prove a conspiracy theory can find clues everywhere to confirm his belief, like 'hidden messages' in the newspaper or on television. Knul does the same; he only sees things that confirm his theory and ignores everything else. If one wants to see references to the French Revolution or any other conflict, they could also be found. The explanation for this is that similar patterns are repeated over and over again in history.

4. "The chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process"
5. The text originally was a "non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters"

Points 4 and 5 are conclusions or suppositions by Jensma himself, that he uses as proof. They can only be true if one first concludes that it is a hoax, but they can not be used to prove that it is a hoax.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 09:47 AM
Thanks for reminding me of this, Abe.
It disproved Halbertsma as a possible suspect.
Knul, what is your answer to this?

Otharus, on 28 February 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:
The following is copied from his publication "LETTERKUNDIGE NAOOGST" (1840), a study of Frisian poetry and literature and the meaning of words (page 138). Translation into English, followed by the original.

Improvised translation
"Tzjerl. The Latin gerulus, a carrier, is like the Germanic carle, Anglosaxon céorle, English churl [tshurl] and this Tjzerl or tzjirl; meaning a man, that by his birth is doomed to carry and tote, or to general land-labour. We already saw that the word with the Anglosaxons and the Frisians had the meaning of a service-man, with or without the prefix hûs. But these huis-kerels, that is, house-servants, became besides fieldworkers, also servants around the house for the landlords and later also for helpers in battle. King Aelfric therefore used the term æcer-céorl, akkerkerel or farmer, as opposed to hûs-cèorl. That's why in medieval Latin hus-carla not only means the man, who is part of the court of a prince or lord, but also the warrior from the court, or one of the bodyguards. Du Cange gave an example where the king gave certain orders to all soldiers of his court, that in Danish are called hûs-carlen. Gabbema (...) shows the tzirlen as meaning fight-mates, and Gysbert uses it in a similar sense like comrade, fellow, loyal mate. The Hollanders say in that same sense "kereltje" to the children, and the Friezen Tzirl to a grown up man. Tzirl is more proud and more masculine than Kereltje. Friesland was the most aristocratic nation of the world, yet so much tempered by democracy, that the farmer calls his landlord Tzerl with the deepest respect. This cultural spirit, still owned by the English, was the result of these peoples being ruled by the ancient duces, mentioned by Tacitus."

"Tzjerl. Het Latijnsche gerulus, een drager, staat over tegen het Germaansche carle, Angels, céorle, Eng. churl [tshurl] en dit Tjzerl of tzjirl; duidende dus eigenlijk een man aan, die door zijne geboorte tot dragen en sjouwen, of tot gemeenen veldarbeid, gedoemd is. Wij hebben reeds gezien, dat het woord bij de Angelsaxen en Friezen de beteekenis van zulk eenen dienstman bezat, het zij dan met of zonder vooraanzetting van hûs. Maar die huis-kerels, dat is, huis-knechten, wierden behalve tot den veldarbeid, bij de groote heeren vervolgens ook tot huisdiensten, en eindelijk tot helpers in den strijd gebruikt. Koning Aelfric sprak daarom al van eenen æcer-céorl, akkerkerel of boer, in tegenstelling met een hûs-cèorl. Van daar beteekent in het middeneeuwsch Latijn hus-carla niet alleen den man, die tot den hofstoet van een prins of groot heer behoort, maar ook den krijgsman uit de hofhouding, die tot de lijfwacht behoorde. Du Cange haalt daartoe onder anderen eene plaats aan, waarin de koning aan al de soldaten van zijne huishouding, welke men in het Deensch hûs-carlen noemt, zeker bevel geeft. Bij Gabbema (...) komen de tzirlen dan ook voor als strijdgenooten, en in dergelijken zin van kameraad, beste, trouwe maat, neemt het ook Gysbert. De Hollanders zeggen in dien zelfden zin kereltje tegen de kinders, waarin de Friezen Tzirl tot een volwassen man. Tzirl is deftiger en mannelijker dan Kereltje. Friesland was het aristocratischste land der wereld, doch zoo sterk getemperd door de democratie, dat de boer behoudens de diepste achting zijnen landheer Tzerl noemt. Deze volksgeest, die nog aan de Engelschen eigen is, was het uitvloeisel van het staan dezer volkstammen onder de aloude duces, van welke Tacitus spreekt.

Some conclusions

1) Halbertsma starts with comparing this Frisian word "Tzjerl" with its counterparts in Latin, Germanic, Anglosaxon and English. He emphatically leaves out the Dutch "Kerel". Later he mentions that the Hollanders call their children "kereltje", but he immediately adds that the Frisian word is so much more masculine and proud.
In the OLB, the version of this word is KERDEL and it is used only twice:

(Fryan) KERDEL = (Dutch) kerel = (German) Kerl = (Swedish) kille = (Frisian) = tzjerl
(the modern English churl has a negative meaning, but apparently in the 19th century it was still a positive term)

Related names: Karel, Karl, Carl, Charles, Carolus, Carlos

transliteration Ottema, 1876:
[p.041] Jahwêder jong kerdel âch en brud to sêka ånd is er fif ånd twintich sa âcht-er en wif to håva.
[p.119] Thâ hja landa hipte-n jong kerdel wal vp. In sina handa hêdi-n skild, thêrvp was bråd åend salt lêid.

Now imagine this Halbertsma, being a proud nationalsist Frisian, who liked to believe that his Frisian language was older than the language of the Hollanders that he must have hated or at least despised so much. And he has a little obsession with this word tzjerl (in his beloved English: churl).
Why would he, writing his political and/or cultural-historical masterpiece use a version of this word that is much closer to the Hollandic KEREL that to his Frisian TZJERL? And he could easily have used this word many times, preferrably in combination with "HûS-", but no, it's only used twice and only in the context of a young man, and hardly as the hard working or brave, proud loyal warrior that he described in his 1840 essay.

2) He proudly calls Friesland the most aristocratic nation of the world and he does not seem very pleased with the democratic principle. The OLB does not reflect these sentiments at all.

3) He suggests that the respect that the Frisians and English still have for their landlords stems from the time of the DUCES from the Roman times. How do you think the Folkmothers and the free fryans from the OLB would have felt about those 'duces'? That was a rhetorical question indeed.

So, in this short sample, there's already three reasons to dismiss the theory that Halbertsma would have been involved in the creation of the OLB.

Even über-hoaxtheorist Jensma did not consider Halbertsma a serious candidate for the job.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 10:47 AM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:
Jensma considered Haverschmidt, who denied this role in a letter to L.F. over de Linden.

Cornelis Over de Linden also denied having been involved in fabricating the manuscript.

According to your theory, he was anyway.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 11:05 AM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:
Its about the etymology of huskerl, which was a special function in Danmark. King Gottrik of Haithabu was killed by one of his huskerls (probably his son). Maybe the inland counterpart of jarl (se-kening). The combination of hus + kerl gives an other meaning to the word kerl. It does not proof anything about the authorship of Halbertsma. Your remarks 2 and 3 are suggestive and not based on facts.

The problem with psychological arguments, is that they are never hard facts.

In Halbertsma's work elements can be found that are in agreement with the 'psychology' (or 'spirit') of the OLB, but other elements are in strong conflict with it.

You focus on the overlapping elements, but ignore the conflicting ones. That is because you want to believe that you are a 100% right, rather than consider a sliding scale of probablity that you are.

Halbertsma had a few favorite topics, or even obsessions (example: Hindelopen), of which we find no trace in the OLB.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 11:12 AM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:
So far, not Jensma or me are the ones, who refuse to accept evidence, but you are.

I asked you many times: WHAT EVIDENCE?!
The only thing you came up with was that words like BOI, MERY, JES and LOK would be too modern.
This evidence is too weak. We don't know how old these words are.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 02:00 PM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:
I don't talk about psychological arguments, but of real arguments (linguistic, theological, philosophical, geographical, etc.).

Your 'proof' that Halbertsma did it is (summarised) that he was interested in linguistics and Frisian history and culture.
That's a psychological argument.
You have no hard facts to prove your theory.

Hindeloopen got its importance during the Hanseatic times. So it didn't fit in the story.

What about Medemblik (MÉDÉA.S.BLIK), Vroonen (FORÁNA), Alkmaar (ALKMÁRUM) and Egmond (EGMVDA), etcetera?

If Halbertsma wrote it as a history based fiction he would have added his little darling.

Even the fantastic Frisian historiography contains crazy etymologies about Hindeloopen (lopende hindes; walking hinds).

### Posted 18 November 2011, 02:49 PM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:
As far as I know Cornelis over the Linden never denied that he was involved in fabricating the manuscript

Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:
Did he ?

I know it was late when you posted Cornelis' testament, but you could at least have read it.
How can he have been involved in fabricating the manuscript if his great-grandfather already had it?
The text would have been interesting for you too, to check your theory. Why didn't you?

Knul, on 07 November 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:
Here is the testament of Cornelis over de Linden. The text is interesting for Otharus to check his theory. [...]
"Aan mijn kleinzoon Cornelis en verdere nakomelingen.
Alle menschen, die eenig belang in mijn handschrift stellen, vragen mij, hoe ik er aan gekomen ben. [...] Mijn overgrootvader [Jan over de Linden] hadt twee zonen, waarvan mijn [groot-]vader [Andries over de Linden] de oudste was.
Hij werd dus bezitter van het handschrift."

Fragment translated:
"To my grandson Cornelis and further descendants.
All people, who are interested in the manuscript, ask me, how it came into my possession. [...]
My great-grandfather [Jan Over de Linden] had two sons, of whom my grandfather [Andries Over de Linden] was the eldest.
Therefore he inherited the manuscript."

### Posted 18 November 2011, 03:21 PM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 12:14 PM, said:
You did not read my website nor my posts. You just remember the modern English words.

I commented extensively on both your website and your posts.
Let me remind you of something.
From your website:

"I regard the appearance of Oldenglish month-names in the OLB as the most important clue to the authorship of Joost Halbertsma, hardcore anglofile and researcher of the relationship between Oldfrisian and Oldenglish.
[...] october / winmonath / winnemonath, frivnskipmonath (winemonth)"

(Original text: "Ik beschouw het voorkomen van Oudengelse maandnamen in het Oera Linda Boek als de belangrijkste aanwijzing voor het auteurschap van Joost Halbertsma, anglofiel in hart en nieren en onderzoeker van de relatie tussen het Oudfries en het Oudengels.")

Otharus, on 02 September 2011 - 08:55 AM, said:
They are not derived from old-english.
To be more clear, here's the mistakes in your table:

october....winmonath........winnemonath, frivnskipmonath

How are MINNE MONATH and ARNE MONATH derived from old-english?

OLB [093/19]

OLB [116/05]



If this is your "most important clue", you should investigate it more deeply.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 03:39 PM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:
As far as I know only three serious candidates have been mentioned: Verwijs, Haverschmidt and Halbertsma, alone or in combination Verwijs-Haverschmidt and Verwijs-Halbertsma.

One of your gurus, Beckering Vinckers concluded that Cornelis Over de Linden had done it all by himself ("Wie heeft...", 1877).

Over de Linden was also one of Jensma's suspects. (Am I the only one here who read his book?)

IMO, the other mentioned suspects are not much more "serious" than Over de Linden.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 03:51 PM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:
You commented on the months, but not on the fact, that old english month names occur in the OLB, which is a specific indication for Halbertsma.

I did, and I also explained why they are more old-Dutch than old-English.

If what you say is correct, than why did Halbertsma change "thrimilce" into "minnemonath", and "weodmonath" into "arnemonath"?

Why are you ignoring the fact that in OLB winnemonath = minnemonath = frjundskipsmonath?

### Posted 18 November 2011, 05:52 PM
Abramelin, on 18 November 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:
Something else: we have talked about how a -K- in Frisian becomes a -TSY- like the -CH- in church; in Dutch we say kerk, the Germans say Kirche (and the German -ch- is a gutteral consonant). If THIS is what was going on, the Fryans would have written the name down starting with a -T- .

There's also examples of K changing into (or being pronounced as) SH:

Kopen (to buy) = to shop

In Swedish: köpa, pronounced as shöpa!

Are you sure that in old-Greek, K in the beginning of a word was (always) pronounced as our K?

### Posted 18 November 2011, 06:51 PM
Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:
Kopen etymologically has nothing to do with shop.
"shop (n.) c.1300, perhaps from [...]"
Just check before you write nonsens.

Dutch - kopen
German - kaufen
Icelandic - kaupa
Danish - købe
Swedish - köpa (pronounced SHöpa)
Norwegian - kjøpe (pronounced SHöbe)
English - to shop

### Posted 18 November 2011, 07:44 PM
Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:
There's also examples of K changing into (or being pronounced as) SH

Similarly, the Chinese equivalent of the Oldfrisian OD, QI, is also known as CHI or XI.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 09:44 PM
Abramelin, on 18 November 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:
Btw: did any of you already come up with an etymology for the OLB word "PRENTAR" which was being translated as "pilot's apprentice" by Ottema (and he was right)?

I corrected you already:
Ottema translated "scheepsjongens" and "ligtmatrozen".
Sandbach: "youngest boys" and "topsailman"
And I suggested the answer:

[Ottema/Sandbach p.47]
Ewa beteekent inzettingen, die bij alle menschen gelijkelijk in hun gemoed geprent zijn
"Eva" means that sentiment which is implanted in the breast of every man

Free translation (interpretation):
"ÉWA are ethics that are imprinted by nature equally in all people"

"... ethics that all people equally know in their heart"


"Prentar" prenten zich kennis en vaardigheden in/ krijgen lessen ingeprent
("Prentar" imprint knowledge and skills/ get lessons imprinted)

### Posted 18 November 2011, 10:09 PM
Abramelin, on 18 November 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:
This is what Ottema says about those "prentar":

"Prentar, nog op Texel een (stuurmans) leerling."
Prentar, still used in Texel to designate a pilot's apprentice

You didn't 'correct' me at all.

Yes, I know he said that in a footnote, but he didn't translate it as "apprentice", as you said.
But it would ofcourse be a good English translation.
I'm just not sure if the French "prendre" is older than a Frisian PRENTHA or PRENTA.
You have not convinced me.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 10:22 PM
Abramelin, on 18 November 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:
The original word is Greek, and only spelled starting with a Kappa: Kekrops.

"Cecrops (Greek: Κέκροψ, Kékrops; gen.: Κέκροπος) was a mythical king of Athens who is said to have reigned for fifty-six years. The name is not of Greek origin according to Strabo."


Strabo (ca. 64 BC – 19 AD):
Now Hecataeus of Miletus says of the Peloponnesus that before the time of the Greeks it was inhabited by barbarians. Yet one might say that in the ancient times the whole of Greece was a settlement of barbarians, if one reasons from the traditions themselves: Pelops brought over peoples from Phrygia to the Peloponnesus that received its name from him; and Danaüs from Egypt; whereas the Dryopes, the Caucones, the Pelasgi, the Leleges, and other such peoples, apportioned among themselves the parts that are inside the isthmus — and also the parts outside, for Attica was once held by the Thracians who came with Eumolpus, Daulis in Phocis by Tereus, Cadmeia by the Phoenicians who came with Cadmus, and Boeotia itself by the Aones and Temmices and Hyantes. According to Pindar, there was a time when the Boeotian tribe was called "Syes." Moreover, the barbarian origin of some is indicated by their names — Cecrops, Codrus, Aïclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.

So the name was of "Barbarian" origin...
(Men with beards who talk "barbarbar"...?)

I know that in modern Greek the letter K is pronounced as K, but I'm not sure about old Greek.
It may have been just like our C, dependant of what vowel follows.
It's not insignificant that in Frisian, Swedish and Norwegian, the K is also not (always) hard.

SÉKROPS may very well have been the original name, later spelled by the Greeks as KEKROPS, even later spelled CECROPS in Latin, andsoforth.

I understand your point and I am intruiged, but not convinced.

### Posted 18 November 2011, 10:37 PM
Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 10:22 PM, said:
... and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.

Ath-manna; Ath-men... could it be more Frisian?

### Posted 19 November 2011, 02:39 PM
Abramelin, on 19 November 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:
apprentice (n.) c.1300, from O.Fr. aprentiz "someone learning" (13c., Mod.Fr. apprenti, taking the older form as a plural), also as an adjective, "unskilled, inexperienced," from aprendre (Mod.Fr. apprendre) "to learn; to teach," contracted from L. apprehendere (see apprehend). Aphetic form prentice was long more usual in English.
If you have a better etynology, I hope you post it.
This is the closest to "prentar" I could find.

The problem with official etymology is, that they only use officially accepted sources and there's not many Oldfrisian sources left.

That's why my preferred method is to compare with other (NW-) European languages, which can be very (sometimes much more!) insightful.

I see a relation with our word "prent" (afdruk, print).
This word is related (but how?) to the Latin "premere" (to press).

A teacher leaves 'impressions' in his students (apprentices), or imprints them his knowledge, skills.

This is what I found (but I don't fully agree):

PRINT - prente (printe), (danish prent; english print).
Most probably this noun is derived from ofr. preinte (prainte, priente) and not from the in Middle-Dutch much more common verb prenten (printen) (according to ...) [size="4"]even though the latter is much older[/size].
Oldfrisian preinte is de fem. form of the past perfect of preindre, a verb that evolved out of Latin premere.
The Ofr. sound ei is represented in Dutch both by e as by i;
our present language only knows the form with e.

Simplified and translated from: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M055905

### Posted 19 November 2011, 03:10 PM
Knul, on 19 November 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:
The reason for the strange spelling is that Oldfrisian does not use the letter C. [...]
But the juulscript does contain C and c.
This proofs, that the juulscript is
not based on Oldfrisian, which does not know the letter c, but likewise on Latin.

"Thit is landriucht [thera] Fresena and skeltanriucht."

Just like in the Oldfrisian laws, C in the OLB is (only) used in combination with H, as CH.

### Posted 19 November 2011, 08:15 PM
Abramelin, on 19 November 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:
The OLB "prentar" clearly has to do with being a 'pupil' or apprentice, and not with the printing of pictures on paper.

Who said it was about "printing of pictures on paper"?

Prent = print = (Dutch:) afdruk
to print = (af-) drukken
imprint = afdruk
press = drukpers
to press = drukken, persen
to impress = indruk wekken
impression = indruk
pressure = druk

But even if it has (as in 'imprinting a person's mind'), then still we come no further than Old French.

Who needs Old French?

In Dutch there has been a clear association with learning/ studying:
inprenten (doen doordringen)
in de uitdrukking "iemand iets inprenten" [diep in de geest doen indringen]
’t Is onnoodig inprenten direct van het fr. deelw. preint, empreint af te leiden.
Uit het Ndl. de. indprente “inprenten”


Middelnederlandsch woordenboek:
inprenten, ynprenten; (vgl. indrukken) iem. iets op het hart of in het gemoed drukken. Vgl. prenten (van lat. premere)

"Prentar" coming from some form of "apprentice" (or "prentice") sounds more logical to me.

As I have shown, it's the other way around:

"Prentice" and "Prentar" are derived from "Prent", which must be a very old word and would originally have ment something like: (foot-/finger-) print, impression, imprint.

### Posted 19 November 2011 - 11:49 PM
Abramelin, on 19 November 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:
"prentar" is so obviously related to "apprentice"

Yes, that's what I said, but in a different way than you think.
Why would I waste my time further if you don't read my posts properly?
Case closed for me.

### Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:40 AM
The Puzzler, on 20 November 2011 - 03:23 AM, said:
To imprint something on your brain is fairly similar - you imprint it into your memory - in other you stamp it in your head, to learn it, to grasp it - basically - it's your memory - imprint it on your brain. I say it alot, maybe it's an old English thought.

You need to think where and how the word arrived into Latin to start with.

It's all well and good to say, oh it came from Latin - but where did Latin come from?

Exactly! Thanks, Puzzler.

My answer is Frisian/Fryan, as you know, so it's circular reasoning to say, it came from Latin or Old French, because if the OLB is correct, the Latin words should be based of Frisian/Fryan ones.

If the concept of print went into Latin, this can easily be relative to print or remember or learn - a learner of the imprint being an apprentice as such.

To be exact, I don't think all Latin words need to be Fryan based, and Fryan words can indeed have there base in other languages too, but I don't see why that has to be Latin just because we have more written records of it and our present dominant culture is an evolved version of the Roman Empire.

### Posted 20 November 2011 - 06:47 AM
Abramelin, on 20 November 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:
You want to the OLB Fryans to be the source of ancient European civilization, the source of the languages spoken in ancient Europe, the source of whatever in Europe.

Why do you think so?
I'm just skeptic about the hoax theories, and until now, my thought experiment that OLB can be authentic is not refuted, but ever more confirmed.

### Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:33 AM
Knul, on 20 November 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:
The verb PRENTHA does not exist in Oldfrisian.

It does not exist in Oldfrisian dictionaries nor (apparently) in the few sources we have.
But the Dutch verb "prenten" and the English verb "to print" must have there origin somewhere, and this may very well (as usual) be Oldfrisian.

### Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:52 AM
cormac mac airt, on 20 November 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:
How can it be considered authentic overall, when you’ve just said we can’t know how much is fact and how much is fiction?

If it's an authentic 13th century manuscript (possibly a copy of something older), we will obviously still not know if all information in it is factual.

No comments:

Post a Comment