Posted 21 October 2011 - 11:20 AM
The following discussion was not finished yet.
As the question
whether OLB might possibly be authentic is vital, I'll repeat:
On 31 August 2011, I said:
Knul's website (in Dutch) about his Oera Linda hoax-theory, starts with:
"In 1867 the Oera Linda Book came to light. Ten years later J. Beckering Vinckers[*] proved on linguistic grounds that it had to be a hoax." [*note: 'Beckering' was not part of his family name, but a given name]
On 18 October 2011, I said:
So Knul believes that Vinckers' gave sufficient proof in 1876 that OLB has to be a hoax.
Can any of the Dutch readers point out or summarise the proof to me, because I never found it.
Abe repeated an answer he gave before, that Vinckers' proof was based on many supposed "linguistic errors" in the OLB.
On 15 October 2011, I said:
Can you give one example from the OLB of a "linguistic error"?
And if you can, how would this prove that OLB cannot be authentic?
Abramelin, on 18 October 2011 said:
I think I'll leave those for Menno Knul if you don't mind
On 18 October 2011 - 07:00 PM, I said:
"The OLB is one of the most amazing books, that were ever found in the world."
"The remarkable book found brave defenders, three men in particular:
Dr. J.G. Ottema, Dr. A.T. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. Vitringa."
"I was recently informed that the late Mr. De Haan Hettema also declared the language of the OLB to be Frisian, older than that of the Old-Frisian laws!! It's almost incredible."
The above quotes are from J.B. Vinckers (1876), who was not able to prove that the OLB is a hoax.
Dr. J.G. Ottema, Dr. A.T. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. A.J. Vitringa and Mr. M. De Haan Hettema (1796-1873).
They declared the OLB language "to be more old and pure than [that] of the Oldfrisian Records".
Some significant publications by Mr. M. de Haan Hettema:
1830 The Emsiger Landlaws of the year 1312
1830 Short guide to Oldfrisian
1832 Friesche Spraakleer (study of Frisian oral language), with R.Rask
1832 Frisian Dutch dictionary
1834 Jurisprudentia Frisica, or Frisian law studies. A manuscript from the 15th Century. Part 1
1834/35 Idem - Part 2
1835 Idem - Part 3
1841 The Fivelingoër and Oldampster Landlaws. An Oldfrisian Manusctript from the 14th Century
1846 Old Frisian Laws - Part 1 (Hunsingoër regt. Rustringer regt. Broekmer regt. Emsiger regt (1st and 2nd codex))
1847 Old Frisian Laws - Part 2-1 (Jus municipale Frisonum)
1851 Old Frisian Laws - Part 2-2 (Boetregisters. Geestelijke regten. Willekeuren. Lex Frisionum)
Vinckers (1876) about the OLB and its language:
"this monstrous absurdity"
"linguistic madness"
"...hundred times more scandalous [...] than essay in a foreign language by a student, who dares to step on the slippery ice of a final exam without any linguistic preparation."
"The language in which this product was written, is a most detestable mishmash, gibberish, made by someone not ignorant in other topics, but absolutely unaware of the primal grounds of the linguistics of related German languages in general, and of the old-frisian language in particular; a gibberish, nothing better than Negro-English; a gibberish, that makes the OLB to a disgrace in the line of most weighty remains of the oldfrisian language."
"A miserable hodgepodge of old and young, such a misfit of babel, that on every page, no in every line of the 126 printed pages, reveils its fake birth to the eye of the specialist through indisputable proof."
~ ~ ~
Mr. Montanus de Haan Hettema was a specialist alright (see list of his publications).
Howcome he did not see all this "indisputable proof"?
Can anyone who takes Vinckers seriously give an example of this "indisputable proof"?
Otharus, on 19 October 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:
Vinckers (1876) saw his method as "... an infallible tool to judge age and purity of the most ancient remains of German language, including Oldfrisian of 558 BC."
He used strong terms, but was not able to produce "the most abundant and convincing evidence" ("de meest overvloedige en overtuigende bewijzen") as he called it.
I asked Knul several times, but he is not able to reproduce Vinckers' 'proof' that OLB cannot be authentic.
Otharus, on 19 October 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:
What if "Dutch" (Westfrisian!) is actually more similar to the original language of our ancient ancestors, than what is called "old-Frisian" (from laws that were noted and copied by Christian, Latin-schooled monks)?
What if old-Frisian expert Mr. Montanus de Haan Hettema was right?
Otharus, on 19 October 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:
I agree with
Dr. de Haan Hettema, Dr. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. Vitringa and Dr. Ottema that the language of the OLB is NOT:
a "monstrous absurdity", "linguistic madness", "scandalous", "a most detestable mishmash", "gibberish", "a disgrace in the line of most weighty remains of the oldfrisian language", "miserable hodgepodge of old and young" or "a misfit of babel" (terms used by J.B. Vinckers).
It's still not clear why it would be "out of the question" that OLB is authentic.
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 11:44 AM
Knul, on 19 October 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:
As I have stated before, the OLB is a word-for-word translation of a Dutch text, which follows Dutch grammar, conjugations and declinations.
[BOEK VAN ADELA MS PAG. 72]
Caput XXIX.
Thit [Dit] is [is] over [over] tha [de] Gêrtmanna [Geertmannen].
1. Thâ [Toen] Hellênja [Hellenia] jefta [of] Minerva [Minerva] sturven [gestorven] was [was],
tha [toen] bâradon [beraadden] tha [de] prestera [priesterss] as [als] jef [of] hja [zij] mith [met] vs [ons] wêron [waren],
til [tot] thju [zij] that [dat] hel [helder] blika [blijken] skolde [zou] havon [hebben] hja [ze] Hellênia [Hellenia] to [tot] ‑ne [een] godene [god] ute [uit] kêth [geroepen]. (...)
I simply replaced the OLB text word-for-word by its Dutch equivalent without changing the word order. The same can be done from Dutch to OLB, but negative verbs and expressions should be adapted conform mediaeval usage like double negations. I agree with Abe that anyone could have done so. That is why I believe, that he could write a hoax text himself as well.
One can do the same with German, English and Swedish; that will only be slightly more difficult.
German:
"Dies ist über die Gértmanna.
Als Hellénja oder Minerva gestorben war,
dann überlegten die Priestern als ob si mit uns waren,
damit sie das klar beweisen wurden haben sie Hellénja zu eine Gottin aus gerufen.
... (undsoweiter)"
English:
"This is about the Gértmanna.
When Hellénja or Minerva died had,
then considered the priests whether they were with us,
till they that clear appear should
have they Hellénja to Goddess declared.
... (andsoforth)"
So what does it prove?
That present day Dutch is more similar to the language that was used in this area over 2000 years ago, than the languages of our neighbors?
Or that it has to be fake because it's more easy to understand than a few Medieval formal texts that only have survived because monks did not burn them?
That we have no old written records of the Aboriginals and the Papua's does not mean they did not have a language.
Our ancestors of the year zero must have had an advanced language and it is possible that OLB is the oldest known record of it.
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 12:20 PM
Abramelin, on 21 October 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:
And the Dutch and German languages often use the same word order so it's no surprize both German and Dutch can be used to create a word-for-word translation of the OLB.
So you agree that Knul's conclusion, that OLB must be
a translation from modern Dutch into pseudo-oldfrisian, is not correct (
as it could also have been from modern German)?
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 12:22 PM
Abramelin, on 21 October 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:
So this 18th century habit already existed in the 7th century BC?
I don't claim that.
If it's authentic, the manuscript is a copy from the 13th century AD (or a later copy of that).
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 01:45 PM
Abramelin, on 21 October 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:
They are not, of course, but it's kind of weird that both a 19th century person and someone from more than 2000 years before him have the same habit of starting a line with punctuation marks.
If the manuscript is authentic, it was
not older than 600 years when Over de Linden studied it.
That something is "kind of weird" to some, does not make it impossible.
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 01:48 PM
cormac mac airt, on 21 October 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:
Even if the OLB could be shown to date prior to the 19th century, what evidence is there that it's a "copy" of anything from before the 13th century?
An example often used are the stilt houses (paalwoningen), described in the manuscript and unknown till the mid-19th century.
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 02:11 PM
Knul, on 21 October 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:
Here is a specimen of the handwriting of J.H. Halbertsma with similar characteristics as the OLB. The snakes (tildes) are used to erase texts. You find the snakes everywhere in the OLB manuscript, apparently not just to fill up open lines, because many lines stay open without such snakes.
I have seen dozens of texts, from the 18th and the 19th century, in which tildes are used.
Therefore, they are no indication that Halbertsma was involved.
Quote
Those who claim the authenticity of the OLB should explain both the numbered missing pages and the printing instructions in the OLB for a manuscript dating back to a time, that printing had not yet been invented.
1) Several explanations are possible: The missing pages may have been taken out on purpose by one of the guardians, or they may have been lended to someone-else without being returned.
BTW: The recent paper-study by Porck, vd Grijn and Kardinaal showed that the empty numbered pages were of a similar, but not the same paper-type. There was no clear answer to the question when and where the paper was fabricated.
2) What "printing instructions"?
### Posted 21 October 2011 - 02:20 PM
Abramelin, on 21 October 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:
But the OLB is supposed to have been copied over at least 2500 years (including Over de Linden's copy).
1st version Book of Adela-followers: 6th century BC
Letter Liko: 9 th century AD
Letter Hidde: 13th century AD
We don't know if the manuscript as we know it is Hidde's version or a later copy of that.
But if it is, there were 19 centuries between the first and the last copy.
Anyway, we'll never know how precise and accurate the last copyist was (unless we'd find the original he used).
### Posted 24 October 2011 - 11:49 AM
If the OLB is a word-for-word translation from modern-Dutch into pseudo-oldfrisian, as Knul stated, then what was the Dutch original for this sentence:
OLB page 10, line 25
THJU LÔFT WÀRT SWART ÀND NÍLOF FON TÁRA TO STIRTANE
Ottema (1872)
de lucht werd zwart en
geelgroen van tranen te storten
[translated into English:]
the sky became black and yellow-green of throwing tears
Sandbach (1872)
the air was dimmed by tears
Jensma (2006)
De lucht werd zwart en
niet moe van tranen storten
[translated into English:]
The sky became black and not tired of throwing tears
The word NÍLOF (or NYLOF) is not used elsewhere in the OLB, nor are the supposed parts NÍ and LOF.
LOF is only used in LOFTUM, LOFTA, LOFTE: (Dutch:) belofte, (English:) promise, oath, pledge, vow
NÍLOF (or NYLOF) = "yellow-green" or "not-tired" or ...?
### Posted 24 October 2011 - 12:00 PM
Abramelin, on 24 October 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:
Otharus, maybe a stupid question, but I'll ask you anyway: did you read Beckering Vinckers' analysis itself, or did you read about his analysis of the OLB?
If you read the analysis itself, you will also know the origin of that 'explanation' of the OLB name "Himellaya" = hemel aaien (to caress heaven): it was nothing but a joke made by Beckering Vinckers.
It tried to find a link to that pdf online, but I guess I'll have to look a bit harder in case you don't have it.
But if you do have the pdf, read pages 8, 9 and 10.
Yes, of course I studied it in detail, but did not find the proof.
Vinkers hated the OLB, and not only because of the language, as he said: "Die voor-Christelijke Oera-Linda's houden er
zeer bedenkelijke, uiterst geavanceerde denkbeelden op na." translated: "Those pre-Christian Oera-Linda's have
a very worrying, utterly advanced ideology."
### Posted 24 October 2011 - 12:50 PM
Abramelin, on 24 October 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:
Btw: the "nylof" thing would be an example of what Becker-Vinckers was talking about: it doesn't appear anywhere in any Old Frisian text, but it is Modern Dutch: nieuw-loof
I don't agree with:
NÍ = new
LOF = leaves.
Jensma (2006) also did not, he translated it as:
NÍ = not
LOF = tired
I don't think he was right either.
It's still unclear what NÍLOF means.
### Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:37 PM
The Puzzler, on 24 October 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:
Ny should be new, like in Nyhellenia.
NÍLOF is spelled with Í or
\|
|
NYHELLENJA with Y or Ì
|/
|
They are different letters.
I'm not so sure yet about "newleaf".
Black-green thundersky alright, but why black-"newgreen" or "yellowish-green"?
The colors have normal names in the OLB.
Green = GRÉN (p.111, line 7)
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:04 AM
The Puzzler, on 25 October 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:
There is no I in nylof so how can you (Knul and Otharus) interpret it as having one and then say it might be a different word???
There are two different Y's in the OLB (see page 46).
They both have two vertical spokes and one side-up spoke; one to the left and one to the right.
Ottema transcribed both as Y, but Jensma distinguishes them:
side-spoke left-up: Y (in FRYA, LYDA)
side-spoke right-up: Í (in GLÍAND, FÍT)
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:34 AM
FRYA THÉR SJUGUN SKÉNHÉDE HÉDE [096/13]
study of the OLB language
In my post about DEL-TA, I gave some examples of how some adjectives can be turned into nouns by adding:
-te (Dutch),
-de (Scandinavian languages),
-th (English); here I forgot the even more obvious -ity (example: oddity)
Quote
diep (-te) = deep/ depth
droog (-te) = dry (-ness)
groen (-te) = green/ vegetable
hoog (-te, -heid) = high (-ness)
laag (-te) = low (-ness)
lang/ lengte = long/ length
leeg (-te) = empty (-ness)
lief (-de) = dear/ love
sterk (-te) = strong/ strength
stil (-te) = silent/ silence, stil (-ness)
ver (-te) = far/ distance
warm (-te) = warm (-th)
wijd (-te) = wide/ width
More common is the use of:
-heid (Dutch)
-heit (German)
-het (Swedish, Norwegian)
-hed (Danish)
Some examples in Dutch:
glad (-heid) = slippery (-ness)
goed (-heid) = good (-ness)
hard (-heid) = hard (-ness)
plechtig (-heid) = formal (-ity)
schoon (-heid) = beautiful/ beauty
snel (-heid) = fast/ speed
vrij (-heid) = free (-dom)
... etcetera
The OLB suggest that this -HÉD is derived from the verb "to have" (see title of this post), which would make sense.
When a noun is based on an adjective (like "hardness" is based on "hard"), the noun represents a property that has the quality of the adjective.
(I don't know how to explain this, I hope it's understandable.)
Examples:
Slipperyness => something has/is slippery
goodness => something that has/is good
hardness => something having/being hard
etc.
The Dutch, German and Scandinavian -heid/ -heit/ -het/ -hed can be used for almost anything, like the English -ness.
The OLB contains the following varieties of this construction, that are often hard to translate:
ÀJENDOMLIKHÉD [p.158/25-26]
NL: eigendommelijkheid => eigenschap
E: 'owndomlikeness' => property, characteristic
BIGÍRLIKHÉD [p.160/21]
NL: begeerlijkheid
E: 'wannahaveness' => covetousness?
BLODHÉD [p.166/01]
NL: blootheid or bloedheid? (uncommon) => 'blooheid', verlegenheid, schroom?
E: timidity, shyness?
BOSHÉD [pp.099/03-04,158/24]
NL: boosheid
E: angryness, wickedness
DERTENHÉD [p.079/15]
NL: dartelheid?
E: wantonness?
DROKHÉD [p.086/15]
NL: drukheid, drukte
E: busyness
DOMHÉD [099/]; DVMHÉD [pp.13,33,35,36]
NL: domheid
E: dumbness, stupidity
DWÉSHÉD [pp.190,191,203], DWÁSHÉDE [plur. 206]
NL: dwaasheid
E: crazyness, stupidity
ÉVGHÉD [p.158]
NL: eeuwigheid
E: eternity
FINDINGRIKHÉD [p.141], OVER.FINDINGRIKHÉD [p.100]
NL: (over-) vindingrijkheid
E: (over-) inventivity
FONSELVHÉD [p.32]
NL: vanzelfheid (uncommon)
E: 'of courseness'?
FORMÉTENHÉD [p.190], VRMÉTENHÉD [p.161]
NL: vermetenheid, vermetelheid
E: audacity
FRYHÉD [pp.134.141,142(3x)]
NL: vrijheid
E: freeness
FVLKVMENLIKHÉD [p.103], FVLKVMINHÉD [p.139]
NL: volkomen(lijk)heid
E: perfect(like)ness
GODHÉD [p.134]
NL: goedheid
E: goodness
GRÁTHÉD [p.151]
NL: grootheid
E: greatness
HÁCHFÁRENHÉD [pp.63,100]
NL: hoogvarendheid
E: (high-faringness) 'pompousness'?
HÉRICHHÉD [p.87], OVERHÉRICHHÉD [p.136]
NL: horigheid => gehoorzaamheid
E: 'hearingness'; obedience
KOSTELIKHÉD [p.207]
NL: kostelijkheid
E: preciousness
KLÁRHÉD [p.145]
NL: klaarheid (helderheid)
E: clearness, clarity
KLÁRSJANHÉD [pp.35,134]
NL: klaarziendheid (helderziendheid)
E: 'clearseeingness'; clearvoyance
LEFHÉD [p.203]
NL: lafheid
E: cowardice
LÔMHÉD [p.099/04]
NL: loomheid
E: heaviness, languidness
OVERBILÁWICHHÉD [p.132]
NL: bijgelovigheid?
E: superstition?
OVERFLODALIKHÉD [p.135]
NL: overvloedelijkheid -> overvloedigheid
E: abundantness
OVIRMODICHHÉD [p.124]
NL: overmoed(igheid)
E: 'overcourageousness'; hubris
RJUCHTFÉRDICHHÉD [pp.32,160]
NL: rechtvaardigheid
E: justice
SALICHHÉD [36], SÉLIGHÉD [pp.158(3x),159]
NL: zaligheid
E: delight, blissfulness
SKALKHÉD [p.17]
NL: schalksheid?
E: roguishness
SKÁMELHÉD [p.112]
NL: schamelheid
E: shabbyness?
SKÉNHÉD [pp.95,96,163]
NL: schoonheid
E: 'shineness'; beauty
SÍRHÉD (name) [p.62,etc]
litterally: "Sierheid"; beauty(ness)
SYRHÉDON [pp.61,75,79,80,etc.], SJARHÉDA [p.118]
NL: sieraden (litt. "sierheden")
E: jewelry ('beautynesses')
SNÔDHÉD [p.115]
NL: snoodheid
E: baseness, wickedness
TSJODISHÉD [p.159]
NL: slechtheid (Jensma), ondeugendheid (Ottema)
E: evilness, badness?
VNDIGERHÉD [4x]
[p.099/04] Jensma: onzorgvuldigheid, Ottema: zorgeloosheid, Sandbach: carelessness
[p.152/11] Jensma and Ottema: onvoorzichtigheid, Sandbach: imprudence
[pp.161/2,203/19] Jensma: onoplettendheid, Ottema: onbezonnenheid, Sandbach: inconsiderateness, thoughtlessness
WELHÉD [p.26]
NL: welheid, goedheid
E: wellness, goodness
WENHÉD [pp.65,147], WÉNHÉD [p.113]
NL: wenheid (not used) => gewoonte
E: habit
WÉRHÉD [pp.118,140(2x),141]
NL: waarheid
E: truth
WISHÉD [p.96,etc.]
NL: wijsheid
E: wiseness, wisdom
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:56 AM
Otharus, on 25 October 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:
VNDIGERHÉD [4x]
[p.099/04] Jensma: onzorgvuldigheid, Ottema: zorgeloosheid, Sandbach: carelessness
[p.152/11] Jensma and Ottema: onvoorzichtigheid, Sandbach: imprudence
[pp.161/2,203/19] Jensma: onoplettendheid, Ottema: onbezonnenheid, Sandbach: inconsiderateness, thoughtlessness
It's remarkable that one-and-the-same word (undigerhéd) was translated in different ways (four by Sandbach, three by Ottema and Jensma):
...........Ottema (1872)......Jensma (2006)......Sandbach (1872)
p.099/04...zorgeloosheid......onzorgvuldigheid...carelessness
p.152/11...onvoorzichtigheid..onvoorzichtigheid..imprudence
p.161/02...onbezonnenheid.....onoplettendheid....inconsiderateness
p.203/19...onbezonnenheid.....onoplettendheid....thoughtlessness
Does anyone know a word from another language (English, German, Scandinavian?) that is moren similar to "undigerhéd"?
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 11:05 AM
Otharus, on 25 October 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:
In my post about DEL-TA, I gave some examples of how some adjectives can be turned into nouns by adding:
-te (Dutch),
-de (Scandinavian languages),
-th (English); here I forgot the even more obvious -ity (example: oddity)
More common is the use of:
-heid (Dutch)
-heit (German)
-het (Swedish, Norwegian)
-hed (Danish)
The OLB suggest that this -HÉD is derived from the verb "to have" (see title of this post), which would make sense.
The Dutch, German and Scandinavian -heid/ -heit/ -het/ -hed can be used for almost anything, like the English -ness.
In Dutch, besides "-heid", "-nes" (or "-nis") is also used in the same way, just like the English "-ness":
bekend/ bekentenis = known, confessed/ confession
bemoeien (-is) = to meddle (in)/ meddling
gebeurd/ gebeurtenis = happened/ 'happenedness' =>
event (in the past)
geschied (-enis) = same, but now it means
history
gevangen (-is) = caught (trapped)/ 'caughtness' =>
prison
treur (-nis) = mourn/ 'mournness' =>
misery
verdommen (-is) = to damn/ damnation
getuigen (-is) = to testify/ testimonial
herdenken/ nagedachtenis = to rethink/ memorial
deren/ deernis = to harm or to hurt/ pity
While "-heid" (OLB: -HÉD) seems to be derived from the verb "to have", "-is" (OLB: -IS or -ES) could be derived from the verb "to be".
Here's the OLB words made with this construction.
Note the many spelling varieties (seven for SKÉDNESE; history!).
ÀRGENESE [041/24; 138/06], ÀRGNISSE [069/05], ÀRGENISSE [076/06], ÀRGNISE [157/13] = annoyance, irritation (dutch: ergernis)
BÉRTNISA [001/21] BÉRTNISSA [087/13], BÉRTNESA [143/04] = events, occurrences, incidents (dutch: gebeurtenissen)
BITJVTENISE [035/01], BITJUDNESE [045/27], BITHJUTNESSE [142/23] = meaning(-s) (dutch: betekenis(-sen))
BYLDNESE [038/08], BYLDNISSE [072/29] = 'buildnesses'; statues (dutch: beeltenissen)
DROVENESE [137/01 = sadness (dutch: droefenis)
ÉR.BJADENESSE [071/15], ÉRBIDENESE [121/06], ÉRBÉDENESE [136/26], ÉR.BÍDNESSE [189/05] = respect; 'honor-offering-ness' (dutch: eerbied)
FANGNISA [037/04,6] = ??? Ottema: "booze lusten", Sandbach: "wicked passions", Jensma: "bevangenissen; gewoonten waardoor men bevangen is (?), eventueel 'gevangenissen'"
HÉMNESA [046/04], HEMNISSA [210/31] = secrets (dutch: geheimen)
LIKNESS [072/30] = likeness (dutch: gelijkenis)
SKÉDNISSE [Hidde/04], SKÍDNISA [004/15], SKÉDNISE [006/11-12], SKÉDNESA [040/05; 108/22] SKÉDNESSE [050/31; 062/06; 065/15; 071/13], SKÉDNESE [053/13; 056/21; 114/01; 119/19; 120/13; 146/16], SKIDNESE [154/19] = histories, history (dutch: geschiedenis(-sen))
STILNISE [009/05; 049/19; 140/23; 163/31], STILNESSE [201/05] = stillness, silence (dutch: stilnis, stilte)
THJUSTERNESSE [084/05], THJUSTERNISE [093/27], THJUSTERNISSE [094/10], THJUSTRENESSE [142/14,26; 159/32] = dusk, darkness (dutch: duisternis)
YDLENISE [009/16] = vanity (dutch: ijdelheid)
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 12:31 PM
Abramelin, on 18 October 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:
It's kind of hard to summarize, but that is how *I* understood Beckering Vincker's analysis.
It's hard to summarize Vinckers' 'analysis', because it's hard to understand him, and that's because he does not make sense.
He admitted that his goal was not to analyze the OLB-language, but to ridicule it:
"I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."
Here are some of the terms he used to describe the OLB and its language:
a "monstrous absurdity", "linguistic madness", "scandalous", "a most detestable mishmash", "gibberish", "a disgrace in the line of most weighty remains of the oldfrisian language", "miserable hodgepodge of old and young" and "a misfit of babel".
REAL experts, like
Mr. Montanus de Haan Hettema (1796-1873) declared the OLB language
"to be more old and pure than [that] of the Oldfrisian Records".
So why was BV's goal to ridicule the OLB?
Because, like he said:
"Those pre-Christian Oera-Linda's have a very worrying, utterly advanced ideology."
("Die voor-Christelijke Oera-Linda's houden er zeer bedenkelijke, uiterst geavanceerde denkbeelden op na.")
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 01:47 PM
Abramelin, on 25 October 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:
Well, if you keep repeating that sermon for the third time, I will repeat that you should read pages 8,9 and 10 of that pdf I posted yesterday.
What good is this for our international forum members?
Of course I have studied those pages, but they don't contain the "indisputable proof" that Vinckers promised.
Obviously, you and Knul can't find it either, or you would simply quote him.
Quote
Also that this Beckering-Vinckers had a kind of sarcastic humor
which when interpreted as you keep doing will give people the impression he really 'hated' the OLB.
I litterally translated his 'sarcastic humor', so no personal interpretation there.
Would you have translated differently?
That he hated the OLB is very obvious, and so is the reason why.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 02:10 PM
Knul, on 25 October 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:
1. I just have received the Archievenblad 2011.no.3. page 23-24 by Ellen van der Grijn, Adriaan Kardinaal and Henk Porck as Otharus told us. It reads so, that from the comparance of the Oera Linda Boek with the empty papers left from Cornelis over de Linden have shown with spectometric tests, that Cornelis over de Linden himself has played an important role in making the OLB. The blank sheets are identical to the sheets of the OLB.
Let's go back a few months...
Otharus, on 15 April 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:
The Oera Linda Boek, a 'cold case' and 'hot item'.
by Henk Porck, Ellen van der Grijn, Adriaan Kardinaal
(published in the magazine of the Dutch Royal Archivists Union (KVAN), edition April 2011)
Otharus, on 24 April 2011 - 05:10 AM, said:
I would like to start discussing this article:
The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper
by A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck
published in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185
(...)
The underlined quote in the following fragment is from "De Gemaskerde God" (2004) by Goffe Jensma, p.256:
Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:
{{{... about some sheets of empty paper that were discovered between the things Cornelis Over de Linden had left behind when he died. It was discovered in the 1920-s, that is some 50 years after COL had died in 1874. The paper was "for the most part cut in the same size and also had lines drawn with pencil just like the paper from the OLB. This paper was not made brown (yet). These pages had been (...) numbered with pencil in the handwriting of COL" (my improvised translation). The handwritten pagenumbers appeared to fit in the gaps from the OLB; 193-194 and 169-188.
This leaves us with some questions:
1. How certain is it that it is indeed Over de Linden's handwriting?}}}
In the 2006 article the authors say about this:
"The blank sheets from Over de Linden's estate have been regarded as identical to the OLB paper and connected to it in several ways:
- the blank sheets are present in the estate of Cornelis Over de Linden
- some blank sheets are numbered in pencil just as those of the manuscript and possibly with the same hand
- ..."
So it is not certain at all that it was Cornelis' hand, like Jensma wanted us to believe.
In fact, if it would resemble his handwriting, the 2006 article would mention this, since they are on Jensma's side, but apparently they are more honest.
Also, the paper study did not confirm that the empty white paper was of the same stock as the colored/aged paper of the manuscript.
That Cornelis Over de Linden would have been involved is cleverly suggested in the article, but not clearly stated.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 02:42 PM
Abramelin, on 25 October 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:
I had a different impression about his intentions: he tried to show in his analysis how ridiculous he thinks the OLB is, not how much he hated it.
He made his intensions very clear:
"I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."
Original text:
"ik heb de taal van het Oera-Linda-Boek belachelijk willen maken"
I'll repeat the terms he used, with the original Dutch words, to show there cannot be any doubt about the fact that he had a serious problem with (content of?) the OLB, specially because the REAL experts of his time thought it was written in
the most pure and ancient old-Frisian they had ever seen.
"this monstrous absurdity" - "dit gedrochtelijke onding"
"linguistic madness" - "taalkundige krankzinnigheid"
"hundred times more scandalous [...]" - "honderd maal schandelijker [...]"
"a most detestable mishmash" - "een allerverfoeilijkst mengelmoes"
"gibberish" - "een wartaal"
"a disgrace" - "een schandvlek"
"A miserable hodgepodge of old and young" - "Een ellendig zamenraapsel van oud en jong"
"a misfit of babel" - "een bajert van spraakverwarring"
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 03:53 PM
In an article in the NRC (dutch Newspaper) of 28-10-1938, Dr. Wumkes is quoted about the OLB.
Geert Aeilco Wumkes (1869-1954) was a Dutch theologian, pastor and historian.
He was the first to translate the bible into Frisian.
He was a librarian of the Provincial Frisian Library from 1924 till 1940.
(underlinings and bolds by me)
"More than 60 years have passed, since J. Beckering Vinckers published his pamphlet with the derisive title: "The falseness of the Oera Linda Book, as proven by the the gibberish in which it was written", Haarlem 1876, and that mister C. Leemans of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam (...), spoke scornfully about the "droll concoction". (...) At the other hand, men like C. Vosmaer [1826-1888] and Multatuli [Eduard Douwes Dekker (1820–1887) express their great admiration for the content of Dr. Ottema's publication. I am convinced that the time when historic and purely philologic criticism was allmighty is over, to make place for a new vision.
Not the question of authentic or false will be most important, but in what shape the eternal Frisian freedom-myth has hidden itself and what place it has in their spirituality."
Original text:
"Het is nu ruim zestig jaren geleden, dat J. Beckering Vinckers zijn vlugschrift uitgaf met den
hoonenden titel: “Die onechtheid van het Oera Linda Boek aangetoond uit de wartaal, waarin het is geschreven”, Haarlem 1876, en dat de heer C. Leemans in de Kon. Akademie van Kunsten en Wetenschappen te Amsterdam (...),
smalender wijs over het “koddige maaksel” sprak. (...) Daartegenover
uitten mannen als C. Vosmaer en Multatuli hun groote bewondering over den inhoud van dr Ottema's publicatie. Naar mijn overtuiging is de tijd, waarin de historische en zuiver philologische critiek oppermachtig was, voorbij, om plaats te maken voor een nieuwe visie.
Niet de vraag van echt of onecht zal voortaan de eerste zijn, maar
in welken vorm de eeuwige vrijheidsmythe van het Friesche volk zich in dit stuk literatuur heeft gehuld en welke plaats daaraan toekomt in het geestelijk leven van dat volk."
Source:
http://www.mennoterbraak.nl/.../braa002vade07_01_0113.php
It had taken the Dutch authorities lots of effort (many wars) to tame the Frisians (west and east) and to unite all the people into what is now "the Netherlands".
The last thing they needed was an ancient document that could be used as oil on the fire of seperatists or other revolutionaries.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:00 PM
The Puzzler, on 25 October 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:
I'm sorry but I can't get past them, since we find a Waralden Olmai (Wralda) and the exact same 6 spoked wheel in their culture it seems likely they actually are the original people who held the history the same as the Fryans.
That doesn't mean Frisians need to have Sami genes, it means we can verify some of the OLB through their culture.
Yes, very interesting.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:56 PM
Otharus, on 25 October 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:
It's remarkable that one-and-the-same word (VNDIGERHÉD) was translated in different ways (four by Sandbach, three by Ottema and Jensma)
The word "DIGER" is used three times in the OLB, but the meaning does not become very clear.
[093/20]
ALLERA MÀNNELIK JEF TO AN MERY FRU ÀND BLÍDE
ÀND NINMAN NÉDE DIGER THAN TO ÁKANE SINA NOCHT.
[O+S p.131]
Iedereen gaf toe aan lustige vreugde en blijdschap,
en niemand had
zorg dan zijn
vermaak [genoegen] na te jagen.
everybody gave himself up to pleasure and merry-making,
and no one thought of anything but diversion
or more litterally:
All people gave in to merry frolic and bliss (or joy),
and no-one had care about anything but to seek pleasure.
[143/25]
MEN FRYA.S FOLK IS DIGER ÀND FLITICH.
HJA WRDON MOD NER WIRG
THRVCHDAM HJARA DOL TO THA BESTA LÉIDE.
[O+S p.195]
Maar Fryas volk is
wakker en vlijtig,
zij werden moede noch mat,
omdat hun doel ten beste geleidde.
but Frya's people [are careful and diligent]
[they] were neither tired nor exhausted
when [since] they had a good object in view.
[154/27]
THACH SAND HI A.DEL NÉI THÉRE BURCH ET TEX.LAND
TIL THJU HI DIGER BI DIGER KVD WERTHA MACHTA.
MITH ELLA HWAT TO VSA ÉWA TÁLE ÀND SEDUM HÉRETH.
[O+S p.209]
[toch] zond hij toch Adel naar de burgt te Texland,
opdat hij hoe
eer hoe beter bekend worden mocht
met alles wat tot onze wetten, taal en zeden behoort.
Jensma: "
door en door zorgvuldig"; very carefully
[yet] he sent Adel to the citadel of Texland
in order to make himself better acquainted
with our laws, language, and customs.
This is yet another example of how - even in Dutch - translation is not always easy.
It shows that Knul's statement, that OLB is just a word-for-word translation of a Dutch text, can not be right.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 05:20 PM
Abramelin, on 25 October 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:
Exactly: like I have said many times now: he thought the OLB was a ridiclous hoax, a linguistic nightmare.
He was a linguist (or something like that), so he judged the OLB based on his knowledge of linguistics.
No, he could not win the argument on linguistic grounds, so he degraded himself by
appealing to ridicule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
"Appeal to ridicule (...) is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
(...)
This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences."
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 05:53 PM
Abramelin, on 25 October 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:
No, you keep ignoring what I said: read pages 8, 9 and 10.
I did not ignore that:
Otharus, on 25 October 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:
What good is this for our international forum members?
Of course I have studied those pages, but they don't contain the "indisputable proof" that Vinckers promised.
Obviously, you and Knul can't find it either, or you would simply quote him.
Vinckers' so-called 'proof' is referred to by all hoax-theorists, but none of them is able to reproduce or summarise it.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:44 PM
Knul, on 25 October 2011 - 07:31 PM, said:
Is this a word-for-word translation or am I blind?
A word-for-word translation from OLB into modern Dutch, yes.
Some of the sentences of the translation (e.g. the very first) don't sound like modern Dutch though.
You assume that old-Dutch (old-'Westfrisian') spoken language would have had a different word order from modern Dutch.
Why?
Sorry Knul, I trust Montanus de Haan Hettema's judgement more than yours.
### Posted 25 October 2011 - 09:01 PM
THIT [dit] IS [is] LANDRIUCHT [landrecht] THERA [der] FRESENA [friezen] AND [en] SKELTANRIUCHT [schoutsrecht].
THI [de] GREWA [graaf], THER [die] AN [aan] FRESLANDE [friesland] GREWA [graaf] WESSA [wezen] SKEL [zal],
HI [hij] SKEL [zal] WESSA [wezen] FULRE [vol] BERDE [gebaard] BERN [kind] AND [en] SIN [zijn] RIUCHT [recht] UNFORLERN [onverloren].
HI [hij] SKEL [zal] TI [de] SUTHERMUTHA [zuidermond] INKOMA [inkomen] AND [en] KOMA [komen] TO [te] FRANEKERE [franeker]
IN [in] THET [dat] DEL [deel] MITH [met] WERDERE [verdere] WERE [weer],
MITH [met] THES [des] KONINGES [konings] IEFTE [toestemming],
MITH [met] BREVE [brief] AND [en] MITH [met] INSIGELE [zegel].
This is a word for word translation into modern Dutch, from Oldwestfrisian (Landlaws).
What does this proof?
That it's a modern fabrication?
Or that the syntax of old-Frisian (= old-Dutch) has not changed much through the ages.
### Posted 26 October 2011 - 07:41 AM
Knul, on 25 October 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:
Do you really think, this is a grammatical correct sentence in Dutch ?
Yes, not less so than your word-for-word translations of the OLB.
"Dit is landrecht der Friezen en schoutsrecht.
De graaf, die aan Friesland graaf wezen zal,
hij zal wezen vol gebaard kind en zijn recht onverloren.
Hij zal de Zuidermond inkomen en komen te Franeker in dat deel met verdere weer,
met des konings toestemming, met brief en met zegel."
Of course the 'creator' added some quasi-old expressions to make us believe it's old. (LOL)
### Posted 26 October 2011 - 07:45 AM
The Puzzler, on 26 October 2011 - 01:44 AM, said:
(about DIGER)
BUT ABE ALREADY CAME UP WITH DILIGENT, I missed that post lol.
A connection with "dignity", as you suggest, makes more sense.
Thanks for that.
### Posted 26 October 2011 - 08:12 PM
Abramelin, on 26 October 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:
You are not the one trying to expose a hoax...
Wiki: "A hoax is a
deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth."
One of the things I do is translate some of the Dutch disinformation that was published about the OLB, so international researchers can draw their own conclusions.
Quote
One of those documents was written by Beckering-Vinckers, and all you, Otharus, have posted about this guy is that he 'hated' the OLB. You only translated those parts where he used language that was easily translatable into English, but not the parts where he actually explains why he did come to his conclusions.
That he despised the OLB (which is obvious) is relevant, because it blurred his judgement.
I also showed how it was probably the content of the book, rather than the language, that mostly horrified him.
("Those pre-Christian Oera-Linda's have a very worrying, utterly advanced ideology.")
In other words; he may very well have had a religious-political motive to ridicule (= neutralise) the OLB.
Besides appeal to ridicule, he used some other typical pseudoscientific tricks, like bluffing with an overwhelming amount of complex irrelevant information and excessive use of terms and phrases like "indisputable proof", "irrefutable fact", "infallible method", "anyone will certainly understand", "most abundant and convincing truth", etc..
(Note: Jensma likes to use similar words too.)
Furthermore, I showed that respected (real!) experts (like de Haan Hettema) of his time did by no means agree with him.
As for "the parts where he actually explains why he did come to his conclusions";
I'm working on that now, and will demonstrate why he was wrong, since neither you nor Knul seem to be able to show why he was right. You just blindly parrot his conclusion, without understanding it. (Was someone talking about "religious belief"? Who's the skeptic here? LOL!)
### Posted 26 October 2011 - 08:50 PM
The Puzzler, on 26 October 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:
All these Dutch people dissing the OLB, makes me think they have an agenda to discredit it. That's OK, any opinions given by them are sure to be filled with arrogance, which is pretty much what Otharus pointed out.
Thanks, that's exactly the point.
The anti-OLB campain of the 1870s was so aggressive and malicious, that it not only drove diligent, honourable and innocent Ottema into despair, but also discouraged any other respected scholar to say or write anything positive about the OLB.
### Posted 26 October 2011 - 09:02 PM
The Puzzler, on 26 October 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:
I made this up, I have it in my new Saami thread but I made it for this one, that's why it has Wralda on it. One thing that stood out clearly to me as I was researching it is the name of the Father of the Tribe - the first Male spirit - the Maadteraahjah. I find this TOO similiar to the father of the Tribe of Hebrews, the father of Abraham, Terah. Not to mention their Torah but I won't even start on that.
Interesting indeed. If I had more time, I'd love to know all of it.
I remember AKKA was also mentioned in the Bock Saga (Finland).
Did you ever listen to the YouTube videos about it? (Much better than reading!)
A good one to start with: http://youtu.be/tbeVAPbgaWg
I think you'd love it and you might find more language links.
Before I discovered the OLB, I learnt about the Bock Saga and it's "Root"-language, which is like old-Swedish, and this made it much easier to read and understand the OLB language later.
### Posted 26 October 2011 - 09:50 PM
The full article by Vinckers (1876) is here:
http://www.dbnl.org/.../vinc015onec01_01_0001.php
His mistake was that he
assumed that Oldfrisian from the 13th (?) century laws had evolved from Gothic from the 4th century, that would have had evolved from old-Greek.
He concluded that the OLB-Frisian was most similar to Oldfrisian, while in his expectation a
proto-language would have to be more 'pure', less 'worn out' (as he said), than Gothic and Greek.
Oldfrisian of the law texts is obviously related to Gothic, but probably more like a cousin, than like a descendant.
Gothic seems to be more related to Greek, than Oldfrisian.
Here are the conjugations of "to find", listed by Vinckers:
Indicative
Praesens. - - - Goth. - - - - - O.fri.
Sing. - - - - - fintha- - - - - finde (I find)
- - - - - - - - finthis - - - - findest (you)
- - - - - - - - finthith- - - - findeth (he/she)
Plur. - - - - - fintham - - - - findath (you plur.)
- - - - - - - - finthith- - - - findath (we)
- - - - - - - - finthand- - - - findath (they)
Praet.- - - - - fanth - - - - - fand (I found)
- - - - - - - - fanst - - - - - funde
- - - - - - - - fanth - - - - - fand
- - - - - - - - funthum - - - - fundon
- - - - - - - - funthuth- - - - fundon
- - - - - - - - funthun - - - - fundon
Now, the verb "to find" as found in the OLB:
to find: FINDA, FINDANDE, FINDNE
he/she finds: FINDATH
he/she found: FUND, FAND
they found: FUNDON, FANDON
(was) found: FUNDEN
(U and V are both used)
One of BV's conclusions:
"Much of what in Greek is still distinguished, has become the same in Gothic.
Anyone will certainly understand that in Oldfrisian of ± 550 BC, older than the Greek of Aeschylus and Pindarus,
infinitely more old constructions should have been saved, than in Gothic of 350 AD."
Original text:
"Veel van 't geen 't Grieksch nog onderscheidt is in 't Gothisch gelijk geworden.
Iedereen zal zeker begrijpen dat Oudfriesch van ± 550 VOOR Chr., dat dus ouder is dan het Grieksch van Aeschylus en Pindarus,
oneindig veel meer ouds moest bewaard hebben dan 't Gothisch van 350 NA Chr."
### Posted 27-10-2011, 06:50 PM
Knul, on 26 October 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:
... no one has ever tried to write a grammar of the OLB, nor produced a vocabulary of the OLB, not even a better list of names and geographical names with explanations than Sandbach's.
Dr. Ottema wrote a dictionary, name-list and Grammar, of which I have a copy.
I used that to make the following post, exactly a year-and-a-day ago.
Otharus, on 26 October 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:
This inspired me to make an improvised list of Toponyms, mentioned in OLB,
based on a list by Dr. Jan Ottema, transcribed by Mr. N. Luitse.
(accents on A and O were ignored)
AKEN - Aken (Aachen)
ALDERGAMUNDE - mouth of Flymeer, near Ouddorp
ALDLAND, ATLAND - Old Land
ALKMARUM - Alkmaar
ALMANLAND - Ameland
ALPA - Alps
ASTFLYLAND - (East-) Friesland (from Vlie to Eems)
ATHENIA - Athens
ATTIKA - Attika
[...]
Note:
Goffe Jensma did not include an index to the OLB, because this "would encourage a realistic reading attitude" (!).
("Een index op het boek zou deze realistische leeshouding slechts aanwakkeren en is om die reden niet opgenomen." (Het Oera Linda-boek 2006, page 59)
### Posted 27-10-2011, 10:04 PM
Halbertsma
had something with Hindeloopen, he considered it's culture as most traditionally Frisian.
He was fascinated with the long hair-braids and he collected garments and house-goods, which he donated later to the first Frisian museum.
Knul and Abe, you believe that Halbertsma was the creative genius behind the OLB (while some others changed and added things later).
How do you explain the fact that OLB contains loads of trivia, but says NOTHING about Hindeloopen and the hair-braids? See fragments below.
"The braiding of the hair in Hindeloopen, according to J.H. Halbertsma a tradition that was already described by Roman writer Tacitus, and that is characteristic for the free Frisians.
[...]
In two rooms [of the Palace of Justice in Leeuwarden] the Antiquarian Cabinet of Friesland was situated... [...]
In there the traditional garments from Hindeloopen were kept, that honorary member dr. Joost Hiddes Halbertsma (1789-1869), the famous Frisian linguist and literary man, had collected and donated to the Cabinet. [...]
Collecting traditional garments was still an unknown phenomenon in the rest of the Netherlands.
Halbertsma was intrigued by the culture of Hindeloopen. [...] His first notes date from 1820. [...]
The casques from Hindeloopen [...] were so capacious, that long braids could be rolled and placed under them, so there was no need to cut the hair. Halbertsma explained: "Because of those long braids the Frisian women were not just the women of a free people, but of the most distinguished women of the Germanic races; this in contrast to the unfree, who were forced by the old Germans to wear their hair short." With this Halbertsma made a direct connection between the Frisian popular culture and the description of habits of the old Germans by Roman writers. [...]
The Frisian Cabinet received many objects from folks-culture as a gift from Halbertsma, like garments and household goods, mostly from Hindeloopen."
These were fragments of:
The Frisian Society as frontrunner in museological understanding - 19th Century initiatives to musealization of folks-culture in Friesland
by Ad de Jong (2002)
Original title and fragments:
Het Fries Genootschap als koploper in museaal besef - Negentiende eeuwse initiatieven tot musealisering van de volkscultuur in Friesland
"Het vlechten van het haar in Hindeloopen, volgens J.H. Halbertsma een traditie die al door de Romeinse schrijver Tacitus beschreven is en kenmerkend is voor de vrije Friezen.
[...]
In twee lokalen [van het Paleis van Justitie te Leeuwarden] bevond zich het Antiquarisch Kabinet van Friesland... [...]
Daarin waren de Hindelooper kledingstukken opgeborgen, die het erelid dr. Joost Hiddes Halbertsma (1789-1869), de beroemde Friese taal- en letterkundige, had verzameld en geschonken aan het Kabinet. [...]
Het verzamelen van klederdrachten was toen in de rest van Nederland een nog onbekend verschijnsel.
Halbertsma werd [...] geïntrigeerd door de Hindelooper cultuur. [...] Zijn eerste aantekeningen dateren zelfs van 1820. [...]
De Hindelooper kappen [...] waren zo ruim, dat daaronder lange vlechten kunnen worden opgerold, zodat het haar niet kort geknipt hoefde te worden. Halbertsma gaf daarbij de volgende toelichting: ‘Door die lange vlechten plaatsten de Friezinnen zich niet slechts onder de vrouwen van een vrij volk, maar onder de aanzienlijkste vrouwen der Germaansche rassen’; dit in tegenstelling tot de onvrijen, die bij de oude Germanen verplicht waren kort haar te dragen’. Halbertsma legde hier een direct verband tussen de Friese volkscultuur en de beschrijving van de gewoonten bij de oude Germanen van de hand van Romeinse schrijvers. [...]
Het Fries Kabinet [kreeg] van Halbertsma een groot aantal objecten uit de volkscultuur ten geschenke zoals kleding en huisraad, merendeels afkomstig uit Hindeloopen."
Source:
http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/artikelen/dejong.htm
