Sandbach, Raubenheimer and Pierce

Notes on the English Oera Linda ‘translations’ by Sandbach, Raubenheimer and Pierce.

1. Sandbach 1876

As written on the title page, this was an English version of Ottema's (1872) Dutch translation. However, the corrections listed in the back of Ottema 1872 were not taken into account.

Secondly, there is at least one significant case of Sandbach misinterpreting a (crucial) sentence.

Missed corrections

a) On page 55, Ottema had: door listen en drogredenen wisten zij alles te bewijzen en te verbreiden (corrected to verbruyen — spoil, corrupt, distort).

Sandbach: by craft and subtlety were able to explain and spread them around.

(Note: Ottema 1876: ... alles te wijzigen en te bederven — to change and spoil everything)

b) Ottema p. 173: Maar Friso, die trotsch en hartstochtig was, ... (corrected to hartvochtig — stern, hard-hearted).

Sandbach: But Friso was proud and passionate

c) Ottema p. 175: De bode liet hunne lijken in de zee werpen (corrected to Demetrius).

Sandbach: The messenger had their bodies thrown into the sea

d) Ottema p. 185: dat de goden toornig waren over de overheersching der boozen. (corrected to ongehoorzaamheid — disobedience).

Sandbach: that the gods were angry with the domineering of the wicked.

Misinterpretation

On page 13, Ottema had: Toen deze te voorschijn kwamen, spijsde Wralda haar met zijnen adem, opdat de menschen aan hem zouden gebonden wezen.

As the verb kwamen is an unmistakable plural, so must be deze and haar, words that can also be used for singular. Sandbach may not have been aware (as most Dutch people today will not be) that haar can archaically be used as plural (wiktionary).

Sandbach translated plural haar as singular her and to match the first part of the sentence, he changed deze (these) into the last: When the last came into existence..., therby suggesting that only Frya received Wralda's breath of life.

2. Raubenheimer 2011 (I only have his first two editions)

Raubenheimer edited the Sandbach version modernizing the English, but in some cases he changed the meaning or added things, without sufficient understanding of the source language (Fryas) or even modern Dutch and Frisian.

The mistakes in fragments b) and d) above (as well as the misinterpretation about Wralda's breath) were reproduced by Raubenheimer. He changed fragment a) into by fallacies they wished to explain everything and expand thereon. This is a good example of someone trying to translate from a language he doesn't understand (even less its expressions) by using a word that seems similar, in this case wished for wisten (WISTON) — a complete mismatch. Zij wisten te ...  literally means They knew (how) to ..., but this is an expression, used for They succeeded in ...

Another example of a such a mistake (resulting in an anachronism) is:

Instead then, of disgracefully imitating the wicked Findas and practicing occultism by saying, ...

Sandbach (who left out some words) had:

Instead, then, of imitating Finda's wicked people,and saying, ...

Source text (Fryas):

INSTÉDE THAT WY THA ÀRGA FINDAS. ALTHUS VN-WÉRTHLIK AFTERNÉI SNAKKA ÀND KÀLTA. (...)

KÀLTA means chatter or babble and has nothing to do with occultism, even though it may have a similar sound.

I have not read the whole Raubenheimer version, but expect it will have more, comparable cases.

3. Pierce 1983

With his translation Pierce intended to “produce the greatest possible likeness of the original text”, resulting in terrible English and often actual mistakes of the category German Gift (poison) → English gift (present).

He also took over at least some mistakes by Ottema (copied by Sandbach), for example:

• fragment d) under Sandbach, above: that the gods were angry with the domineering of the wicked.
• the notorious “... pleasure in the dreams of Wralda. Hatred came among them ...” in the creation myth, discussed in detail earlier.

Because reading this apparent experiment is so tormenting I have not reviewed more than a few passages only. I may add more examples here later.