Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:30 PM
Petrus Wierdsma (1729-1811), from unpublished notes, as quoted by Montanus Hettema in his experimental Frisian-Dutch dictionary of 1832.
My improvised translation:
"Nowaday Farmers-Frisian, Old-Frisian and Anglo-Saxon are in my opinion the same language, the only difference being, some changes as caused by time, as is the destiny of all living languages.
If one would compare Old-Frisian to the current dialect of the Frisian farmers, one can clearly see the similarities. The nowaday dialect is specially supported by the work of Gijsbert Japiks, who on purpose, and to save the dialect, spelled according to it and not according to the old ways. One can read his own foreword about that."
Original text:
"'T koomt mij voor dat 't heeden daagsche Boersch-Vries, het Oud-Vriesch en 't Angel-Saxisch, eenen dezelfde taal is, en dat 't onderscheid alleen moet worden gezogt, in de veranderingen daar aan door verloop van tijden te beurt gevallen, gelijk 't lot is van genoegzaam alle leevendige Taalen.
Indien men aan 't Oud-Vriesch de heedendaagsche dialect van de Vriesche Boeren weet te geven, wort men de overeenkomst tusschen beide alzeer duidelijk gewaar. Tot de heedendaagsche Dialect helpt ongemeen 't werk van GIJSB. JAPIKS die opzettelijk, en om de Dialect te bewaaren, de spelding daar na en niet na de spelling wijze der ouden geschikt heeft. Men zie daarover zijne eijge voorrede."
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:32 PM
Improvised translation of some relevant fragments from G.Th.Jensma "De Gemaskerde God" (2004; p.40-42)
According to Hettema, Newfrisian as spoken by 19th century farmers, was virtually the same language as the Oldfrisian of the known medieval lawtexts. He even dared say that this Oldfrisian was actually a much more pure variety of Frisian, than the Newfrisian of his time, because the latter had been bastardised in time by strange (Hollandic) influences. The consequence of this remarkable view was, that he wanted written Newfrisian to be based on historical Oldfrisian grammar and spelling.
The idea that languages were once more pure and had worn out in time was common in the 19th century, although of older humanist origine. Hettema shared this idea with important Dutch and foreign linguists like Jacob Grimm, Matthijs de Vries, Joost Halbertsma and Eelco Verwijs, to name just a few. (This view was abandoned later under the influence of Darwinism and other ways of thinking about evolution.)
[...]
In that time (certainly until 1875) Frisian had no certain spelling. Every writer used his own. One of them was Sytstra, who said: "To spell Frisian in strange letters is a disgrace", and he introduced an Oldfrisian spelling, the so-called 'Iduna-spelling'. The Frisians had to learn to become themselves again: Oldfrisians. [...] The introduction of the Iduna-spelling led to a readability problem, because most Frisian writers until then were used to spell phonetically, in 'Hollandic' letters. This resulted in a huge gap between spelling and pronounciation, because the latter could no longer be the criterium for spelling. Although Sytstra's spelling met with fierce criticism here and there, it was very succesful until 1862, when he and his comrade Tiede Roels Dijkstra both died.
In my opinion, the OLB-language originated from this extreme, archaizing stand. The lords purists must have been pleased, as the OLB-language is exactly what they were striving for. It's probably not a coincidence that in 1871 Hettema immediately accepted the book. Shortly before publication of the OLB, he was shown photo's of a few pages. Based on the script, he concluded that it could not be a really old text. Otherwise, he could only conclude that the language was 'the' Frisian (of all times), because the only difference he saw between Old- and Newfrisian was the way of spelling. He considered the OLB-spelling to be beautiful, fantastic, even better: "... the spelling... is, in my eyes, much more conform the old and most regular, and much better and orderly, than of those, who nowadays write the language; one would wish, that this spelling were reintroduced."
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 21 November 2011 - 08:18 PM
cormac mac airt, on 20 November 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:
Doesn't exactly validate the historical accuracy of the OLB implied in this thread or Alewyn's book, now does it? THAT'S the whole problem, IMO.
I will try to explain just this one point from the Oera Linda Book and as simple as possible:
1. The Oera Linda Book describes a natural disaster that struck Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East & Asia in 2194 BC.
(Btw, I agree that the date mentioned should be 2194 BC and not 2193 BC.)
2. There are two aspects of this disaster in the OLB, namely (1) the date and (2) the description of the disaster.
3. The first objective is to see whether we have any evidence of a cataclysmic disaster at the time and in the areas described. I think I have shown sufficient historical and scientific evidence of a global disaster in ca. 2200 BC (which is only 6 years off the OLB’s date). This tells me the OLB’s date is credible. In addition, Prof. Harvey Weiss tells us that the Akkadian Empire came to a very sudden end in 2193 BC. Puzzler gave us an additional source which described massive floods in China in 2194 BC and Abramelin gave archaeological evidence of a society in Spain that was destroyed in 2194 BC by, inter alia, fire. Archaeologists SUSPECT that this old Spanish town was destroyed by warfare, but in light of all the evidence that have been presented here, it is not unrealistic to suspect that this may have been part of the greater Global disaster.
I repeat, the OLB’s date is very credible. I may just add that I have not seen the date of 2194 BC anywhere in Jewish or Christian or, for that matter, in any secular literature other than the OLB and the Frisian’s old National Calendar; in other words, only in Frisian sources.
4. The second aspect of this event is the OLB’s description of the disaster. If The OLB derived its date from the Frisian National Calendar which, in turn, inferred it from Biblical Chronology, then we should agree that the primary source for the OLB’s disaster must be the Bible. We should then expect the OLB’s description of the disaster to be the same, or at least very similar, to the Biblical disaster or “Noah’s Flood”.
This, however, is not the case. The Bible only describes (what seems like) a massive tsunami and 40 days of rain.
The OLB, however describes earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, volcanic activity, etc. which is much closer to modern archaeological and other scientific discoveries and, in fact, very different from the Bible. This tells me that the Bible could not have been the source of the OLB’s disaster.
5. In both OLB’s date and description, we have sufficient historical and scientific evidence which tells us that the OLB’s account of the disaster (especially the description) could not have been dreamed up in the 19th century. This information was simply not available at the time.
My logic tells me the Oera Linda books’ description of the disaster is based on fact. Do you have any other explanation?
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:00 PM
Just some wise words.
[018/16] NÉN RÉD IS BÉTRE THÀN KVA RÉD
[019/07] THÀT MÁRA.DÉL KÀN ALSA BLÍD DWÁLA SA HÀT MINRA.DÉL
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:21 PM
Otharus, on 27 April 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:
Generation I ~ Jan Andries-son Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794)
He had been a 'klerk' (administrator) in Leeuwarden in the early 1740-s, but moved to Enkhuizen after his marriage in 1745 with Jantje vd Woud from Harlingen. That he was a klerk means that he came from a relatively well-to-do family, or else he would not have learnt to read and write.
I interpreted with the modern meaning of the word, but "klerk" apparently meant scholar or student.
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 10:13 PM
I think the following is particularly relevant again in our times:
Common Laws (MÉNA ÉWA), rule #11
[020/33]
THÉRA THAM TO MÀRKA KVME NE MÜGON NAVT NI WOKERJA.
KVMATH THÉR SVM. SA IS.T THÉRA FAMNA PLICHT
HJAM KÀNBÉR TO MAKJANA INVR THÀT ÉLLE LÁND.
TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE KÉREN NAVT WRDE TO ENG AMPT
HWAND SOKA HÀVATH EN GÍRA.LIK.HIRTE.
VMBE SKÀT TO GARJA SKOLDE HJA ELLA VRRÉDA
THÀT FOLK. THJU MODER. HJARA SIBBEN
ÀND THO THA LESTA HJARA SELVA.
[Ottema p.33]
Degene die te markt komen mogen niet woekeren.
Komen er sommige, dan is het de plicht der maagden,
hen kenbaar te maken over het geheele land,
opdat zij nimmer gekozen worden tot eenig ambt,
want zulke hebben een gierig hart.
Om rijkdom te vergaderen zouden zij alles verraden,
het volk, de Moeder, hunne nabestaanden
en ten laatsten zich zelven.
[Sandbach p.33]
There shall be no usurers in the market.
If any should come, it will be the duty of the maidens
to make it known through the whole land,
in order that such people may not be chosen for any office,
because they are hard-hearted.
For the sake of money they would betray everybody —
the people, the mother, their nearest relations,
and even their own selves.
[New improvised translation]
Those who come to market shall not practice usury.
If some come, it's the duty of the Famna
to make them known in the whole land,
so they'll never be chosen for any office,
because such have a vulture-like heart.
To accumulate treasure they would betray all;
the people, the Mother, their relatives,
and at last themselves.
### Posted 22 November 2011, 07:07 AM
The language of the oldest accepted sources in Oldfrisian is a bit more primitive, less pure than that of the OLB, and in a different (our own, Roman) script, while the OLB is in the Yol-based script and relatively similar to the spoken language of 18th century Frisian farmers.
Now imagine this, just as a thought experiment:
After several centuries of wars, in which the cultural elite of the defeated was systematically killed, and remains of their culture likewise destroyed, people who still own a collection of texts in the language of their ancestors (and are still able to read and understand part of it), will hide it carefully, and stay 'below the surface'. They will not challenge authorities, live a normal, simple life and keep it a secret, for they would risk the lives of their whole family, if they would attract too much attention.
Charlemagne conquers most of Europe and some of the (East-) Frisians prove to be good allies (like some Dutch collaborated with the Germans in the last war). He sees benefit in making friends with them. The smartest of them are taught to read and write by monks. They are even allowed to write down their own language. As they may not or hardly have learnt this before, and their vocabulary is also limited, their way of writing is less advanced than that of the hidden documents of the suppressed cultural elite. They write down their laws and some poems to praise Charlemagne, as well as the ten Christian commandments; innocent things like that. And those writings are kept by the monasteries and the new 'cultural elite', that evolves out of these 'traitors' (did they have a choice?) or collaborators.
Then, a few hundred years later, these texts are considered to be the oldest texts of this lost culture. Since we don't have older texts, we assume there was no writing tradition before the Romans and later the Franks came. The Frisians would have learnt to write their spoken language down, by the Romans or the Roman Catholics. And this 'primitive' looking and sounding language of the oldest known sources would have evolved in what was our spoken language in the 19th century.
~ ~ ~
The last keeper of the manuscript who received proper instructions by his ancestors of what it is about (Andries OL), and of the importance to keep it a secret, does not get along very well with his own sons (Pieter & Jan), but the boyfriend (Hendrik R.) of one of his daughters (Aafje) becomes a friend and confident. This daughter and her partner live together with her father and this partner (Hendrik Reuvers), who can read and write, becomes the new keeper of the manuscript. His brother-in-law (Jan OL) does not understand the importance of keeping the secret, and when he is drunk or otherwise careless, he boosts about his ancestors and about the manuscript. So will his son (Cornelis), later.
The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.
He (Cornelis OL) will later tell his version of the story, that he was ment to inherit the book, and that his family gave it to him. The family stays silent, because they know the danger of talking too much about the manuscript, and because he is, after all, the one who still carries the family name. For a long time he (Cornelis) tries to unravel the secrets of the book himself, but when he doesn't succeed and sees his end approaching, and because he believes that there is no longer a real (political) danger, he starts asking for help. First only people he trusts, later more and more, real scholars.
The end of the story we know.
### Posted 22 November 2011, 10:29 AM
Something nice to study in the context of this threat:
### Posted 22 November 2011, 12:31 PM
Another far-fetched translation by Goffe Jensma (2006):
[006/28]
RING AS HJA RIP WÉRON KRÉJON HJA
FRÜCHDA ÀND NOCHTA ANDA DRÁMA.
Jensma:
"Zo rap als ze rijp waren, kregen ze
vreugde en genoten inWralda's extase."
In English:
"As soon as they were ripe, they got
joy and (had) pleasure inWralda's extacy."
We already saw that adding "Wralda's" was a mistake, because the word belongs to the next sentence.
But why translate DRÁMA with "extacy"? In other fragments it also clearly means "dream(s)":
[012/24]
... TILTHJU HJA THÉROF DRÁME THES NACHTIS
=> verb "to dream"
[203/01]
... WÉRON FRYAS SJVGUN WÁKFÁMKES HJA ANDA DRÁME FORSKINNEN
=> expression "in the (their) dreams"
### Posted 23 November 2011, 09:47 AM
Otharus, on 22 November 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:
The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.
Today, November 23, in the Westfrisian daily newspaper (Dagblad voor West-Friesland), an photo was published from the family of Trijntje Kofman and Andries Zwaan.
The brother of Trijntje, Hein (Hendrik Kofman) would have claimed that Cornelis Over de Linden had stolen the OLB from his parents, Cornelia Reuvers and Rijkent Kofman, who were living in the house of Cornelis' aunt, Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849).
Simplified genealogy fragment Over de Linden/Kofman
(source: http://fryskednis.blogspot.com/2011/04/over-de-linden-genealogy.html)
(I) Andries OVER DE LINDEN (1759-1820) carpenter, grandfather of Cornelis and keeper of the manuscript (according to Cornelis);
married 1782 to IJfje SCHOLS (1762-1820)
children:
1) Pieter (1782-1819)
2) Jan (1785-1835), father of Cornelis
3) Trijntje (1791-?)
4) Antjen (1795-1882)
5) Aafje (1798-1849) ==>> see (II)
(II) Aafje OVER DE LINDEN (1798-1849) dealer in used goods, aunt of Cornelis, living in the house of her parents, keeper of the manuscript together with her husband (according to Cornelis);
married (1st) 1821 to Hendrik REUVERS (1796-1845) son of Cornelia Brouwer and unknown father, assistant of cheese trader/labourer;
married (2nd) 1846 to Koop MEIJLOF
children, both accepted at marriage:
1) Cornelia (1818-1878) ==>> see (III)
2) Andries (1820-?)
(III) Cornelia REUVERS (1818-1878) cousin of Cornelis, living in the house of her parents;
married 1838 to Rijkent KOFMAN (1820-1861), carpenter
children:
1) Trijntje (1839-1912) ==>> see (IV)
2) Jacob (1843-) leader of "Apostolic Mission Community"
3) Hendrik (1853-) frontrunner of socialist movement
4) Wiggertje (1857-?)
(IV) Trijntje KOFMAN (1839-1912)
married 2-12-1858 Andijk to:
Andries ZWAAN (1830-1909) landfarmer
children:
1) Hendrik (1859-1919)
2) Rijkent (1860-1954)
3) Klaas (1862-1922)
4) Cornelia (1863-1924)
5) Teetje (1865-1919
6) Aafje (1867-1941)
7) Andries (1870-1945)
8) Jacob (1873-1937)
9) Roelof (1875-?)
10) Piet (1877-1935)
11) Willem (1882-?)
Petrus Wierdsma (1729-1811), from unpublished notes, as quoted by Montanus Hettema in his experimental Frisian-Dutch dictionary of 1832.
My improvised translation:
"Nowaday Farmers-Frisian, Old-Frisian and Anglo-Saxon are in my opinion the same language, the only difference being, some changes as caused by time, as is the destiny of all living languages.
If one would compare Old-Frisian to the current dialect of the Frisian farmers, one can clearly see the similarities. The nowaday dialect is specially supported by the work of Gijsbert Japiks, who on purpose, and to save the dialect, spelled according to it and not according to the old ways. One can read his own foreword about that."
Original text:
"'T koomt mij voor dat 't heeden daagsche Boersch-Vries, het Oud-Vriesch en 't Angel-Saxisch, eenen dezelfde taal is, en dat 't onderscheid alleen moet worden gezogt, in de veranderingen daar aan door verloop van tijden te beurt gevallen, gelijk 't lot is van genoegzaam alle leevendige Taalen.
Indien men aan 't Oud-Vriesch de heedendaagsche dialect van de Vriesche Boeren weet te geven, wort men de overeenkomst tusschen beide alzeer duidelijk gewaar. Tot de heedendaagsche Dialect helpt ongemeen 't werk van GIJSB. JAPIKS die opzettelijk, en om de Dialect te bewaaren, de spelding daar na en niet na de spelling wijze der ouden geschikt heeft. Men zie daarover zijne eijge voorrede."
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:32 PM
Improvised translation of some relevant fragments from G.Th.Jensma "De Gemaskerde God" (2004; p.40-42)
According to Hettema, Newfrisian as spoken by 19th century farmers, was virtually the same language as the Oldfrisian of the known medieval lawtexts. He even dared say that this Oldfrisian was actually a much more pure variety of Frisian, than the Newfrisian of his time, because the latter had been bastardised in time by strange (Hollandic) influences. The consequence of this remarkable view was, that he wanted written Newfrisian to be based on historical Oldfrisian grammar and spelling.
The idea that languages were once more pure and had worn out in time was common in the 19th century, although of older humanist origine. Hettema shared this idea with important Dutch and foreign linguists like Jacob Grimm, Matthijs de Vries, Joost Halbertsma and Eelco Verwijs, to name just a few. (This view was abandoned later under the influence of Darwinism and other ways of thinking about evolution.)
[...]
In that time (certainly until 1875) Frisian had no certain spelling. Every writer used his own. One of them was Sytstra, who said: "To spell Frisian in strange letters is a disgrace", and he introduced an Oldfrisian spelling, the so-called 'Iduna-spelling'. The Frisians had to learn to become themselves again: Oldfrisians. [...] The introduction of the Iduna-spelling led to a readability problem, because most Frisian writers until then were used to spell phonetically, in 'Hollandic' letters. This resulted in a huge gap between spelling and pronounciation, because the latter could no longer be the criterium for spelling. Although Sytstra's spelling met with fierce criticism here and there, it was very succesful until 1862, when he and his comrade Tiede Roels Dijkstra both died.
In my opinion, the OLB-language originated from this extreme, archaizing stand. The lords purists must have been pleased, as the OLB-language is exactly what they were striving for. It's probably not a coincidence that in 1871 Hettema immediately accepted the book. Shortly before publication of the OLB, he was shown photo's of a few pages. Based on the script, he concluded that it could not be a really old text. Otherwise, he could only conclude that the language was 'the' Frisian (of all times), because the only difference he saw between Old- and Newfrisian was the way of spelling. He considered the OLB-spelling to be beautiful, fantastic, even better: "... the spelling... is, in my eyes, much more conform the old and most regular, and much better and orderly, than of those, who nowadays write the language; one would wish, that this spelling were reintroduced."
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 21 November 2011 - 08:18 PM
cormac mac airt, on 20 November 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:
Doesn't exactly validate the historical accuracy of the OLB implied in this thread or Alewyn's book, now does it? THAT'S the whole problem, IMO.
I will try to explain just this one point from the Oera Linda Book and as simple as possible:
1. The Oera Linda Book describes a natural disaster that struck Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East & Asia in 2194 BC.
(Btw, I agree that the date mentioned should be 2194 BC and not 2193 BC.)
2. There are two aspects of this disaster in the OLB, namely (1) the date and (2) the description of the disaster.
3. The first objective is to see whether we have any evidence of a cataclysmic disaster at the time and in the areas described. I think I have shown sufficient historical and scientific evidence of a global disaster in ca. 2200 BC (which is only 6 years off the OLB’s date). This tells me the OLB’s date is credible. In addition, Prof. Harvey Weiss tells us that the Akkadian Empire came to a very sudden end in 2193 BC. Puzzler gave us an additional source which described massive floods in China in 2194 BC and Abramelin gave archaeological evidence of a society in Spain that was destroyed in 2194 BC by, inter alia, fire. Archaeologists SUSPECT that this old Spanish town was destroyed by warfare, but in light of all the evidence that have been presented here, it is not unrealistic to suspect that this may have been part of the greater Global disaster.
I repeat, the OLB’s date is very credible. I may just add that I have not seen the date of 2194 BC anywhere in Jewish or Christian or, for that matter, in any secular literature other than the OLB and the Frisian’s old National Calendar; in other words, only in Frisian sources.
4. The second aspect of this event is the OLB’s description of the disaster. If The OLB derived its date from the Frisian National Calendar which, in turn, inferred it from Biblical Chronology, then we should agree that the primary source for the OLB’s disaster must be the Bible. We should then expect the OLB’s description of the disaster to be the same, or at least very similar, to the Biblical disaster or “Noah’s Flood”.
This, however, is not the case. The Bible only describes (what seems like) a massive tsunami and 40 days of rain.
The OLB, however describes earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, volcanic activity, etc. which is much closer to modern archaeological and other scientific discoveries and, in fact, very different from the Bible. This tells me that the Bible could not have been the source of the OLB’s disaster.
5. In both OLB’s date and description, we have sufficient historical and scientific evidence which tells us that the OLB’s account of the disaster (especially the description) could not have been dreamed up in the 19th century. This information was simply not available at the time.
My logic tells me the Oera Linda books’ description of the disaster is based on fact. Do you have any other explanation?
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:00 PM
Just some wise words.
[018/16] NÉN RÉD IS BÉTRE THÀN KVA RÉD
[019/07] THÀT MÁRA.DÉL KÀN ALSA BLÍD DWÁLA SA HÀT MINRA.DÉL
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:21 PM
Otharus, on 27 April 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:
Generation I ~ Jan Andries-son Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794)
He had been a 'klerk' (
I interpreted with the modern meaning of the word, but "klerk" apparently meant scholar or student.
### Posted 21 November 2011 - 10:13 PM
I think the following is particularly relevant again in our times:
Common Laws (MÉNA ÉWA), rule #11
[020/33]
THÉRA THAM TO MÀRKA KVME NE MÜGON NAVT NI WOKERJA.
KVMATH THÉR SVM. SA IS.T THÉRA FAMNA PLICHT
HJAM KÀNBÉR TO MAKJANA INVR THÀT ÉLLE LÁND.
TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE KÉREN NAVT WRDE TO ENG AMPT
HWAND SOKA HÀVATH EN GÍRA.LIK.HIRTE.
VMBE SKÀT TO GARJA SKOLDE HJA ELLA VRRÉDA
THÀT FOLK. THJU MODER. HJARA SIBBEN
ÀND THO THA LESTA HJARA SELVA.
[Ottema p.33]
Degene die te markt komen mogen niet woekeren.
Komen er sommige, dan is het de plicht der maagden,
hen kenbaar te maken over het geheele land,
opdat zij nimmer gekozen worden tot eenig ambt,
want zulke hebben een gierig hart.
Om rijkdom te vergaderen zouden zij alles verraden,
het volk, de Moeder, hunne nabestaanden
en ten laatsten zich zelven.
[Sandbach p.33]
There shall be no usurers in the market.
If any should come, it will be the duty of the maidens
to make it known through the whole land,
in order that such people may not be chosen for any office,
because they are hard-hearted.
For the sake of money they would betray everybody —
the people, the mother, their nearest relations,
and even their own selves.
[New improvised translation]
Those who come to market shall not practice usury.
If some come, it's the duty of the Famna
to make them known in the whole land,
so they'll never be chosen for any office,
because such have a vulture-like heart.
To accumulate treasure they would betray all;
the people, the Mother, their relatives,
and at last themselves.
### Posted 22 November 2011, 07:07 AM
The language of the oldest accepted sources in Oldfrisian is a bit more primitive, less pure than that of the OLB, and in a different (our own, Roman) script, while the OLB is in the Yol-based script and relatively similar to the spoken language of 18th century Frisian farmers.
Now imagine this, just as a thought experiment:
After several centuries of wars, in which the cultural elite of the defeated was systematically killed, and remains of their culture likewise destroyed, people who still own a collection of texts in the language of their ancestors (and are still able to read and understand part of it), will hide it carefully, and stay 'below the surface'. They will not challenge authorities, live a normal, simple life and keep it a secret, for they would risk the lives of their whole family, if they would attract too much attention.
Charlemagne conquers most of Europe and some of the (East-) Frisians prove to be good allies (like some Dutch collaborated with the Germans in the last war). He sees benefit in making friends with them. The smartest of them are taught to read and write by monks. They are even allowed to write down their own language. As they may not or hardly have learnt this before, and their vocabulary is also limited, their way of writing is less advanced than that of the hidden documents of the suppressed cultural elite. They write down their laws and some poems to praise Charlemagne, as well as the ten Christian commandments; innocent things like that. And those writings are kept by the monasteries and the new 'cultural elite', that evolves out of these 'traitors' (did they have a choice?) or collaborators.
Then, a few hundred years later, these texts are considered to be the oldest texts of this lost culture. Since we don't have older texts, we assume there was no writing tradition before the Romans and later the Franks came. The Frisians would have learnt to write their spoken language down, by the Romans or the Roman Catholics. And this 'primitive' looking and sounding language of the oldest known sources would have evolved in what was our spoken language in the 19th century.
~ ~ ~
The last keeper of the manuscript who received proper instructions by his ancestors of what it is about (Andries OL), and of the importance to keep it a secret, does not get along very well with his own sons (Pieter & Jan), but the boyfriend (Hendrik R.) of one of his daughters (Aafje) becomes a friend and confident. This daughter and her partner live together with her father and this partner (Hendrik Reuvers), who can read and write, becomes the new keeper of the manuscript. His brother-in-law (Jan OL) does not understand the importance of keeping the secret, and when he is drunk or otherwise careless, he boosts about his ancestors and about the manuscript. So will his son (Cornelis), later.
The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.
He (Cornelis OL) will later tell his version of the story, that he was ment to inherit the book, and that his family gave it to him. The family stays silent, because they know the danger of talking too much about the manuscript, and because he is, after all, the one who still carries the family name. For a long time he (Cornelis) tries to unravel the secrets of the book himself, but when he doesn't succeed and sees his end approaching, and because he believes that there is no longer a real (political) danger, he starts asking for help. First only people he trusts, later more and more, real scholars.
The end of the story we know.
### Posted 22 November 2011, 10:29 AM
Something nice to study in the context of this threat:
### Posted 22 November 2011, 12:31 PM
Another far-fetched translation by Goffe Jensma (2006):
[006/28]
RING AS HJA RIP WÉRON KRÉJON HJA
FRÜCHDA ÀND NOCHTA ANDA DRÁMA.
Jensma:
"Zo rap als ze rijp waren, kregen ze
vreugde en genoten in
In English:
"As soon as they were ripe, they got
joy and (had) pleasure in
We already saw that adding "Wralda's" was a mistake, because the word belongs to the next sentence.
But why translate DRÁMA with "extacy"? In other fragments it also clearly means "dream(s)":
[012/24]
... TILTHJU HJA THÉROF DRÁME THES NACHTIS
=> verb "to dream"
[203/01]
... WÉRON FRYAS SJVGUN WÁKFÁMKES HJA ANDA DRÁME FORSKINNEN
=> expression "in the (their) dreams"
### Posted 23 November 2011, 09:47 AM
Otharus, on 22 November 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:
The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.
Today, November 23, in the Westfrisian daily newspaper (Dagblad voor West-Friesland), an photo was published from the family of Trijntje Kofman and Andries Zwaan.
The brother of Trijntje, Hein (Hendrik Kofman) would have claimed that Cornelis Over de Linden had stolen the OLB from his parents, Cornelia Reuvers and Rijkent Kofman, who were living in the house of Cornelis' aunt, Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849).
Simplified genealogy fragment Over de Linden/Kofman
(source: http://fryskednis.blogspot.com/2011/04/over-de-linden-genealogy.html)
(I) Andries OVER DE LINDEN (1759-1820) carpenter, grandfather of Cornelis and keeper of the manuscript (according to Cornelis);
married 1782 to IJfje SCHOLS (1762-1820)
children:
1) Pieter (1782-1819)
2) Jan (1785-1835), father of Cornelis
3) Trijntje (1791-?)
4) Antjen (1795-1882)
5) Aafje (1798-1849) ==>> see (II)
(II) Aafje OVER DE LINDEN (1798-1849) dealer in used goods, aunt of Cornelis, living in the house of her parents, keeper of the manuscript together with her husband (according to Cornelis);
married (1st) 1821 to Hendrik REUVERS (1796-1845) son of Cornelia Brouwer and unknown father, assistant of cheese trader/labourer;
married (2nd) 1846 to Koop MEIJLOF
children, both accepted at marriage:
1) Cornelia (1818-1878) ==>> see (III)
2) Andries (1820-?)
(III) Cornelia REUVERS (1818-1878) cousin of Cornelis, living in the house of her parents;
married 1838 to Rijkent KOFMAN (1820-1861), carpenter
children:
1) Trijntje (1839-1912) ==>> see (IV)
2) Jacob (1843-) leader of "Apostolic Mission Community"
3) Hendrik (1853-) frontrunner of socialist movement
4) Wiggertje (1857-?)
(IV) Trijntje KOFMAN (1839-1912)
married 2-12-1858 Andijk to:
Andries ZWAAN (1830-1909) landfarmer
children:
1) Hendrik (1859-1919)
2) Rijkent (1860-1954)
3) Klaas (1862-1922)
4) Cornelia (1863-1924)
5) Teetje (1865-1919
6) Aafje (1867-1941)
7) Andries (1870-1945)
8) Jacob (1873-1937)
9) Roelof (1875-?)
10) Piet (1877-1935)
11) Willem (1882-?)
No comments:
Post a Comment