14 November 2013

Forum #38 (19 - 30 oct. 2013)

Posted 19 October 2013 - 05:10 PM
View Postdocyabut2, on 19 October 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:
The Oera Linda Book is a 19th-century manuscript ...
The manuscript's author is not known ...

It is not at all a proven fact that it would have been written in the 19th century (neither is the claim that the paper would be of that age).

Trying to identify the author(s) is like searching for a murderer, when it is still possible that the deceased died a natural death.


Posted 20 October 2013 - 04:35 PM
View PostThe Puzzler, on 20 October 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:
Don't worry, I know there is no spilt U's in the OLB text, there is only W - so don't waste your time, I'm miles ahead.

Posted Image


Posted 20 October 2013 - 04:47 PM

Posted Image

Last week I visited Amsterdam and went to one of the biggest and most central book shops.
This is what I saw at the history department, on the mythology shelf.
When I bought my copy, in 2009, I had to order it, as no shop had it.
So why did this shop have it now?
I asked the guy from the history section.
He answered "just a coincidence", and immediately added "but of course it is nonsense" (he used the word "kolder").
I asked why - if it is nonsense - it was in the history section, on the mythology shelf.
He said he refused to put it at "esoterics". (In that case I would not have seen it.)
Still, rather bizarre that it was openly displayed, not standing on its side between other books, specially if the guy from the shop who ordered it thinks it is nonsense. Why would he want to sell nonsense?


Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:46 AM
View PostThe Puzzler, on 20 October 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:
You've become too Dutch gestur.

Westfrisians are as Dutch as Yirrganydji people are Australian.


Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:11 AM
View PostKnul, on 20 October 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:
I translated word-for-word part of the first chapter, which you may compare with the Dutch translation of Ottema.
was [was] al [al] go=rêd [gouwraad] anda [in de] tys [war] aend [en] al=ên [al een] sa [zo] by [bij] hjara [haar] kvmste [komst]
was de geheele Go=raad in de war, en alles even als bij hunne komst.

"was al gouwraad in de war en al een zo bij haar komst"

This is just one example of how Knul's word-for-word translation is gibberish, although most Dutch readers will be able to undertand the meaning.

A similar translation can be made in German and in Norwegian.
It shows that syntax did not change as much as many people might expect.

Most authentic medieval Oldfrisian texts can also be translated word-for word.
That does not mean they are fake and made in the 19th century.

If syntax did not change that much in the last 1000 years, then why would it have changed much between 0 and 1000 CE?


Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:28 AM
View PostAbramelin, on 20 October 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:
My point was that the ''double V'' was used as ONE LETTER in the OLB.

If not, explain to me why the name WRALDA was put around the Yule wheel as a word consisting of 6 letters instead of 7 letters.

Yes and no.

Sometimes it was used as one letter, for example around that Jol-wheel.
And many times it is clearly written as two seperate V's, with space in between them.
On the alfabet page (p.46), it was not seen as one individual letter.


Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:53 AM
View PostKnul, on 21 October 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:
... Gestur does not accept the evidence, that the OLB is a mid 19th century product, but still believes in the nazi ideas of Herman Wirth (1930), which in Germany has been rejected. (1934).

Indeed, I don't accept that so-called "evidence".

I take Wirth seriously, but that does not mean I agree with all his ideas.

For example:
Wirth believed that part of OLB was written by 18th century Frisian humanists.
I don't.

Wirth left (was made to leave) SS-Ahnenerbe in 1936 and was forbidden to publish or lecture untill the end of the war, because he opposed the Hitler-cult (the idea that Hitler was sent by god) and was too outspoken in his criticism of other aspects of the NS ideology. At the end of the war, the 'liberators' destroyed half of his collection and stole the other half.


Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:17 AM
View PostThe Puzzler, on 21 October 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:
In the use of the V as a U sound and a U as a U sound, what is the difference does anyone think? Why do they use a V sometimes or then a U sometimes to represent U?

This is indeed a good question.

I started investigating this once, but it is much work.
Here are some ideas of how it may be done:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Note: in the fourth row LJÚ-, I forgot to mention that in modern Frisian it is Ljou(-wert).
Since "thousand" and "out" have the same sound as "Ljouwert", this might indicate that the U with a dot (represented by me as Ú here), sounds as in "out".

My impression is that (as Van Gorp said) the use of V and U in OLB is not always done consequently and often the difference between V and U is hardly or not visible.

A statistical analysis may prove that there is a significant difference between various texts - as would be expected if they are written by various authors in various times.

I encourage anyone who wants to dive into this, but right now I myself have other priorities.


Posted 24 October 2013 - 09:21 AM
Good find, but invalid conclusion.

Knul, on 24 October 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

A very good indication, that the OLB has been written by the Halbertsma's.

J.H. Halbertsma (1789-1869):
dat komt dat syn hjerring daer nou net briedt

... his herring does not bake there now

E.H. Halbertsma (1797-1858):
Myn hjerring bret hjir net.

my herring does not bake here

that hja hjara hering navt vp vsa fjvr brêda ne mochton

that they could not bake their herring on our fire

Spreekwoordenboek der Nederlandsche taal (Dictionary of Dutch proverbs) by P.J. Harrebomée (1860):
Zijn haring wil hier niet gaar braden.
His herring does not bake well-done here.
(references: Winschooten bl. 77. Tuinman I. bl. 51. Everts bl. 343. v.d. Hulst bl. 13. v. Eijk I. nal. bl. 5, II. nal. bl. 14. Drenthe bl. 207. Sancho-Pança bl. 25. Bogaert bl. 34.)

The Halbertsma´s were folklorists.
They will not have invented a new proverb, but used a traditional one.


Posted 27 October 2013 - 02:01 PM
Spelling variety in OLB
samen (together), verzamelen (to gather)

[page/line] in original manuscript


Dutch: (te-)samen, (te-)saam
German: zusammen
Danish, Norwegian: sammen
Swedish: tilsammans
Icelandic: saman
French: ensemble
Latin: simul
English: together

SÁMA - 22 (2X)
SÉMIN - 23
ET SÉMINE - 11,20
TO SÉMINE - 14,17,18,28
ET SÉMNE - 4,5,6,8,19,21
TO SÉMNE - 7,12,26

Dutch: verzamelen
German: sammeln
Danish: indsamle
Swedish: samla
Norwegian: samle
English: to gather



Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:24 AM
Knul, on 28 October 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:
Please, let us know why the Old-Frisians use the calendar, which refers to a flood which is beyond their knowledge and experience, somewhere outside of Europe in a hostile territory reigned by Finda.


The ode to Frya ends with the land where she lived sinking and everything being lost, the people fled and resettled and named the land Texland.
Therefore - although in one text it is suggested that (an) "Aldland" had been in the east - it is more likely that the Fryan calendar was named after the " old land" somewhere northly of our current Texel (between England, Holland, Denmark and Norway).

(Sandbach p.19)
Exalted Frya! When she had thus spoken the earth shook like the sea of Wr-alda. The ground of Flyland sank beneath her feet, the air was dimmed by tears, and when they looked for their mother she was already risen to her watching star; then at length thunder burst from the clouds, and the lightning wrote upon the firmament "Watch!"
Far-seeing Frya! The land from which she had risen was now a stream, and except her Tex all that was in it was overwhelmed.
Obedient children! When they came to themselves again, they made this high mound and built this citadel upon it, and on the walls they wrote the Tex, and that every one should be able to find it they called the land about it Texland.


Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:13 PM
The Puzzler, on 28 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:
Prior to that they were written by Fasta as Frya's Tex only.

Yes, and I suspect Fàsta (Vesta) to have made that (or at least part of it) up herself.
(And if so, being the first to create pseudo-history and putting a time-bomb under what would become Fryan culture):

(Sandbach p.23:)
Upon my servant [fám, maiden] Fasta I have placed all my hopes. 
Therefore you must choose her for Eeremoeder [Honorary-mother].


Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:40 PM
I would like to discuss a more fundamental question.

Why did no promotor of the hoax-theory ever seriously publish about the question why OLB can not be authentic? Since BV's flimsy report (1876), they have all assumed that OLB is self-evidently fake.

Here is a list of some of the most significant publications, with my summaries:

1876, J.B. Vinckers: De Onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk, aangetoond uit de wartaal waarin het is geschreven("the inauthenticity of the OLB, proven by the gibberish in which it was written")
Summary: It must be fake, while the language is gibberish
Quote: "Het doel dat ik mij voorstelde is bereikt; ik heb de taal van het Oera-Linda-Boek belagchelijk willen maken. Dit is voor 't oogenblik voldoende." (I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB. This satisfies for now.)

1877, J.B. Vinckers: Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven? ("who wrote the OLB?")
Summary: Assuming it is fake, Over de Linden must have made it

1927, M. de Jong: Het Geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek ("the secret of the OLB")
Summary: Assuming it is fake, Verwijs must have made it
(Over de Linden had not lied, but had bought the manuscript and created his own reality about it, which he believed - in other words he was delusional)

1928, P. Boeles: De auteur van het Oera-Linda-Boek ("the author of the OLB")
Summary: Assuming it is fake, Over de Linden must have made it
(and Verwijs can not have been involved)

1978, G. van der Meij: Kanttekeningen bij het Oera Linda Boek - Een afspiegeling van de taalgeleerdheid, denkbeelden en schrijfstijl van dr. J.H. Halbertsma, doopsgezind predikant te Deventer. ("Notes on the OLB - a reflection of the linguistic erudition, ideas and writing style of baptist vicar dr. Halbertsma")
Summary: Assuming it is fake, Halbertsma must have made it

2004, G. Jensma: De Gemaskerde God - François Haverschmidt en het Oera Linda-boek
Summary: Assuming it is fake, Haverschmidt must have made it
(in a conspiracy with Verwijs and Over de Linden)


Vinckers (who was an insignificant highschool teacher English and an utter amateur compared to dr. Ottema) in his publication of 1876 was the only to 'prove' the inauthenticity, and he did so by claiming that the language was gibberish. He admitted that his aim beforehand had been to ridicule OLB's language. How scientific is that?

This thread (following the previous one) has given abundant proof that the language is NOT gibberish. It can be understood and studied like any real language. The claims that the language would be too modern have been systematically refuted as well. It is just different from what some people would have expected. No hard evidence of inauthenticity.

All of the above listed theories about who might have made it, start with the assumption that it is fake.

This is like trying to identify a murderer, when the deceased might have died a natural death.


Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:14 AM
Knul, on 28 October 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:
Even Cornelis over de Linden started to disbelieve the authenticity of the OLB but was then convinced by Ottema that the OLB was authentic.

What is your source for this?

It may well be, that Ottema at the end found that he was wrong and therefore committed suicide.

It may also be, that Ottema was in fact murdered.
How easy would it have been to hang an old hermit and make it look like suicide?
I never read of any suidide note or witness who heard him admit this assumed insight.

In fact the whole OLB does not indicate any sign of authenticity.

Does it indicate clear signs of inauthenticity?
Think about this analogy:

A dead man is found and two medical doctors arrive.
The question is: Is this man murdered or did he die a natural death?
One doctor says: "I see nothing that indicates murder and conclude natural death."
The other says: "I see nothing that indicates a natural death and conclude murder."
Now, does it make sense to assume the man was murdered and try to find a suspect?
Which of the two doctors must come forward with evidence to support his conclusion?

On the contrary, everything indicates that it is a mid 19th c. literary product, in my view written 1836-1845 by Dr. J.H. Halbertsma(text) and adapted by E. Stadermann (translation and transcription), who was a friend of the owner Cornelis over de Linden. In my viewthe present manuscript was a printer's concept text for publication.

"everything indicates"
You have given some examples of what you see as indications and I have always refuted them.
If it is really that obvious, it should be easy to give convincing examples.

"Dr. J.H. Halbertsma"
If he wrote it, he must have done a hell of a lot of research, and used as many sources. He also must have done this in utter secret, while no one has ever come forward, confirming that he had worked on it. I have posted a strong argument against the Halbertsma thesis earlier (27 oct. 2011):

Halbertsma had something with Hindeloopen, he considered its 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.friesgeno...elen/dejong.htm

"E. Stadermann"
If Stadermann translated it in (a reconstruction of) Oldfrisian that fooled specialists like Ottema and De Haan Hettema, he must have been a genius. Where and how did he study to be able to do this? Why was no other trace of his talent found anywhere? He could have become very famous with it.

"the present manuscript was a printer's concept text for publication"
Then why was it made to convincingly look medieval?
Why has many years of research on the paper still not revealed how the paper was made to look that old?


Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:34 AM
Abramelin, on 28 October 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:
Wordfk will not get us anywhere

It has already gotten us to the conclusion, that Vinckers was wrong, when he claimed to have proven that OLB must be inauthentic, because its language would be gibberish ("wartaal'). It has become obvious, that the language is NOT gibberish.

Although BV's 'proof' was invalid, and his publication full of falacies, it has since been assumed (in public opinion), that his general conclusion (OLB is fake) was right, and that no further investigation was needed.

A study of the language gets us to the conclusion, that further investigation into OLB's authenticity is needed.


Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:41 PM
Knul, on 29 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:
... when you show up with characteristics, which indicate or proof the authenticity of the OLB.

The onus probandi (dutch: bewijslast) lies with those who claim that OLB is not authentic.
A suspect should be considered innocent until his guilt is proven.
Likewise, OLB should be considered (at least possibly) authentic, as long as it is not proven to be fake.


Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:45 PM
You said:
"It may well be, that Ottema at the end found that he was wrong and therefore committed suicide."

Then I said:
"It may also be, that Ottema was in fact murdered."

Knul, on 29 October 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:
If you speculate, I can do so too.
Can we be absolutely certain that he was not murdered?


Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

Knul, on 29 October 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:
Apparently you know little about E. Stadermann.
That is no answer.
I asked:
Where and how did he study to be able to do this? 
Why was no other trace of his talent found anywhere?

I challenge you to translate something well known and simple (like the "our father" prayer) into the OLB language.
You will have to agree that it is not easy.
How could a Stadermann have created these 190 pages?
It is just utterly unlikely.


Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:58 PM
Knul, on 29 October 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:
He [Halbertsma] published about his OLB related research in the Overijsselsche Almanak 1836-1845. You can read most of the annual issues on internet.

Why would he have kept his supposed work on the OLB a total secret?
Why did he not include anything about his beloved Hindeloopen?
That would have provided for some nice typical OLB-style 'folk'-etymology.


Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:34 PM
The following fragment is exemplary for the rhetoric that OLB-´skeptics´ use, when they deal with the question of authenticity.

From: "De auteur van het Oera-Linda-Boek" ("the author of the OLB") by Mr. P.C.J.A. Boeles (1928)

Note: The author´s academic title "mr." indicates, that he studied law and in his publication he claims to finally write a juridically sound analysis, which - as the fragment illustrates - is hilarious.

"Furthermore it was mainly historians and literati, who wrote about the OLB. Their observations and expert opinions are often of paramount importance, if one wants to get an impression of the nature of the OLB itself. It has been conclusively shown by them, that the OLB is not really an old manuscript, but a product of the second half of the last century."

Original dutch text:
"Voorts waren het voornamelijk historici en literatoren, die over het O.L.B. schreven. Hunne beschouwingen en deskundige adviezen zijn dikwijls van het hoogste belang, wanneer men een indruk wil krijgen van den aard van het O.L.B. zelf. Onomstotelijk is door hen aangetoond, dat het O.L.B. geen werkelijk oud handschrift is, maar een product uit de tweede helft der vorige eeuw."

Subsequently, the author does not refer to any of these alleged specialists or their supposed conclusive evidence. The reader just has to believe him, but can not check for him- or herself.


Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:36 PM
Knul, on 28 October 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:
Even Cornelis over de Linden started to disbelieve the authenticity of the OLB but was then convinced by Ottema that the OLB was authentic.
Cornelis started having doubts about the authenticity, but not about the fact that he had obtained it in 1848 (from his family in Enkhuizen) and about what his grandfather had told him in his childhood (about ancient Frisian descent).
He was convinced by Ottema´s explanation concerning the Swiss Polehouses.


Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:29 AM
That Cornelis at some point (when various scolars had claimed OLB to be definately fake) doubted the authenticity, and that it might have been, for example, created by one of his ancestors, only proves that he had a healthy, open mind.
Going through the letters I translated before again, I read this and think it is good to repost it:

Cornelis Over de Linden to Dr. Ottema, 16-11-1871:
I don't have the slightest doubts that one day the truth will come float to the surface, 

but now that I have studied your translation, I figure that the laws described in it 
are very radical, and that when the theology it teaches would become that of the people again, 
all sorts of clergymen would have to find a new job. 
That is why I think they will oppose it as much as is in their power.

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 17-3-1876:
But always remember, that no-one can measure the spirit of the book, 

who does not completely understand the language, 
and can observe and consider all nuances in variety of language form, 
spelling, and style in all parts that are collected in the book.

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 24-06-1876: 
I wish someone would act who is courageous enough 

to defend the OLB in public, without fear for the systematic intimidation.
Because all the howling is intimidation, started by Spectator magazine 

and systematically sustained.
There are enough proponents, but they dare not speak, 

out of fear of being declared fool or villain


Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:54 AM
Does anyone know if "

de Scriptoribus Frisiae

" (1593) by Suffridus Petrus (written in Latin) was ever translated into Dutch, English or German?

The following is most relevant IMO (and my Latin is not good enough):

Dr. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden, 19-05-1877: 

Concerning the manuscript it is important, specially because Suffridus Petrus, de Scriptoribus Frisiae mentions in his introduction, that Friso left several writings, one of them a travel diary and biography; that he had written them in the Frisian language and with Greek characters, and that his successors wrote just like that, until the times that the Roman script became current in Germania.

He did not mention how or where he had learned about that (as was not his habit), but he can not have sucked that out of his thumb.

Something must have come to his knowledge of Frisian notes, from the times in which the Ovira Lindas wrote, and that travel diary (about the journey from India to Friesland) may be related to Ljudgert's diary.

Informations like this from Suffridus used to be considered as fabulations, but among those fabulations there may turn out to be more truth than was presumed. It is also acknowledged that Suffridus Petrus never lied, but that he would have copied from earlier sources.

No comments:

Post a Comment