Words ending with -HÉD or -NES / -NIS

(this was also posted on the forum on 25 October 2011)

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 suggests 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

######

PART 2

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)

Forum # 12 (okt. 21 - 28, 2011)

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

Halbertsma & Hindeloopen

Relevant fragments (to be translated) from:

"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: "Het Fries Genootschap als koploper in museaal besef - Negentiende eeuwse initiatieven tot musealisering van de volkscultuur in Friesland")

[...]
Ten tijde van de voettocht van Van Lennep en Van Hogendorp door Nederland [1823], waren Hindeloopen en Molkwerum plaatsen die niet overgeslagen mochten worden. Dat waren zij al eeuwen, want raadpensionaris Johan de Witt zond zijn voorname buitenlandse gast prins Cosimo de Medici, de latere groothertog van Toscane al in 1669 naar Molkwerum om de plaats te bezichtigen. De plaats was toen nog geen bezienswaardigheid vanwege de pronkkamers, maar wel vanwege de bijzondere taal, de merkwaardige kleding – de vrouwen droegen hoofddeksels in de vorm van een doos - en het feit dat de huizen zó ongeordend waren neergezet dat een onbekende er verdwaalde als in een doolhof. [...]
[De geleerde J.W. de Crane] had een etnologische blik avant la lettre op het verschijnsel en bestudeerde de zeden en gewoonten in combinatie met de taalkundige ontwikkeling en de oudheden. Hij zag de eigenaardige gewoonten in beide plaatsen als oeroude Friese zeden, die sinds de Middeleeuwen onveranderd waren gebleven. [...]
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. [...]
[Er vond] aan het eind van de achttiende en in het begin van de negentiende eeuw een kentering plaats in de oriëntatie op het verleden. Werden de culturele wortels daarvóór vooral gevonden in de klassieke cultuur, dat wil zeggen de Griekse en Romeinse oudheid, met de Romantiek ging men zich meer richten op de wortels van het eigen volk en die meende men te vinden in het Oudgermaanse verleden. Naar men dacht [...] bewaarde de volkscultuur nog sporen van dit verleden. Van iets dat ruw en onbeschaafd was en bestreden moest worden, werd de volkscultuur verheven tot iets dat gekoesterd en bewaard moest worden. [...]

Het ging ook om een cultuurpolitiek doel: het wijzen op het belang van de eigen Friese identiteit.

Friesland liep hiermee voorop in Nederland. Dit had waarschijnlijk te maken met het feit, dat de behoefte aan eigen identiteit bij de elite in deze provincie groter was dan elders. Friesland had in de nieuwe eenheidsstaat zijn autonome positie, die het als gewest van de Republiek had, verloren. Veel zaken werden nu in Den Haag beslist. De hoogtijdagen van de Friezen lagen, anders dan in ‘Holland’, niet in de Gouden Eeuw, maar in de vroege Middeleeuwen, in de zevende tot de negende eeuw, toen Friesland zich uitstrekte langs de Noordzee van de Eider (in Sleeswijk) tot aan het Zwin bij Brugge of verder naar het zuiden. Friesland speelde toen een belangrijke rol in het Noordzeegebied samen met de Britse eilanden en Scandinavië. De terpvondsten waar het Fries Genootschap zich mee bezig hield, werden hieraan gerelateerd, de gevonden munten vertelden immers het nodige over de handelsbetrekkingen. Vanaf 1840 organiseerde het Fries Genootschap zogenaamde winteravonden. Deze werden met een zekere regelmaat gehouden, meestal zo'n vier- à vijfmaal per winter (november tot en met maart) bij voorkeur bij volle maan, zodat de leden die buiten Leeuwarden woonden goed de weg naar huis konden vinden op het donkere platteland. Doorgaans hield een van de leden een lezing, was er daarna discussie en werden er nog losse mededelingen gedaan of werd een gedicht in het Fries gedeclameerd. Eekhoff deed er geregeld verslag over zijn vorderingen met de studie van Hindeloopen. Op deze bijeenkomsten zochten de leden naar de oorsprong van de Friezen in de eerste eeuwen na Christus, de vroegere grenzen van hun woongebied, de Friese taal, het Fries recht, de Noordse mythologie en de verwantschap met andere Germaanse stammen zoals de Angelen en de Saksen, waarmee de Friezen samen Groot-Brittannië binnenvielen.

In Friesland was men eerder en meer ontvankelijk voor de Germaanse oudheidkunde en de zich ontwikkelende volkskunde dan in de rest van Nederland. Dit bleek ook uit de contacten, die het Fries Genootschap met vergelijkbare buitenlandse gezelschappen legde. Zo was er een uitwisseling van publicaties met o.a. het Koninklijk Gezelschap van Noordsche Oudheidkunde in Kopenhagen, de Smithsonian Institution en de Philological Society in Londen. Tekenend voor de oriëntatie op de middeleeuwse Noordzee-relaties was het feit dat het Fries Genootschap vooral contact zocht met genootschappen en geleerden in Groot-Brittannië en Denemarken. Tot de honoraire leden hoorden in 1843 een aantal Engelse en Deense geleerden, uit Duitsland alleen Jacob Grimm. De bijzondere positie die men Friesland toedacht had ook te maken met de omstandigheid, dat het gebied niet door de Romeinen bezet was geweest en dat de Friezen als enige Germaanse stam ten tijde van de Grote Volksverhuizing (vijfde en zesde eeuw na Chr.) op dezelfde plaats waren blijven wonen. Daardoor dacht men dat het Germaanse karakter zich bij de Friezen in zuiverder vorm gehandhaafd had dan elders en dat de gebruiken zich bij hen beter hadden kunnen handhaven, wat voor de ‘Germanenforschung’ natuurlijk een buitenkans was. Het was een facet dat met name in Duitsland de aandacht trok en maakte dat Duitse volkskundige musea vaak objecten uit Friesland voor hun verzamelingen probeerden te verwerven, tot complete Hindelooper kamers toe. [...]

In twee lokalen [van het Paleis van Justitie te Leeuwarden] bevond zich het Antiquarisch Kabinet van Friesland, ook wel het Fries Kabinet van Oudheden genoemd. Het was in 1853 opgericht door het Provinciaal Bestuur. Daar was de verzameling te zien die het Fries Genootschap sinds de oprichting in 1827 bijeen had gebracht. In de ene zaal kon de bezoeker een aantal schilderijen en tekeningen van staten en stinzen (adellijke landhuizen en versterkte woningen) zien, in de andere bevonden zich de oudheden en boeken. In het midden van laatstgenoemde zaal stonden vier met glas bedekte kasten met daaronder twaalf schuifladen voor de terpvondsten en proeven van de verschillende grondsoorten. Aan de wanden hingen schilderijen. Natuurlijk trok ook de ‘keeftkast’ de aandacht. 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. Deze besloegen bij elkaar zo'n 23 kledingstukken en accessoires uit Hindeloopen, zoals mutsjes, doeken, hemden, rokken, schorten, alsmede een ‘wentke’ en een ‘kassekyntje’ (een kort jak van sits als daagse kleding), beide van ‘Oost-Indische’ sits. Een bijzondere plaats nam ook een staalboek in, waarin 82 stalen van Hindelooper bonte stoffen, meest uit Oost-Indië, opgenomen waren. De kledingstukken waren hiermee flink ‘opgewaardeerd’. Waren zij voordien uitsluitend ter plaatse als ‘gebruiksgoed’ gedragen door de Hindelooper bevolking, nu de traditionele kledingstukken in Hindeloopen zelf nauwelijks meer gedragen werden, waren zij als Fries ‘erfgoed’ tentoongesteld in de provinciale hoofdstad. Het verzamelen van klederdrachten was toen in de rest van Nederland een nog onbekend verschijnsel.

Halbertsma werd evenals Eekhoff geïntrigeerd door de Hindelooper cultuur. In de periode, dat hij predikant was in Bolsward, deed hij al onderzoek in de Zuidwesthoek. Zijn eerste aantekeningen dateren zelfs van 1820. Later in Deventer, waar hij doopsgezind predikant was, verzamelde Halbertsma tal van voorwerpen. Zijn huis was een ‘rijk museum’ met zóveel verschillende voorwerpen dat een bezoekster ervan duizelde. Kennis van de oudheden was voor Halbertsma geen dode studie. De studie van gebruiken en zeden, was gunstig voor de gezondheid en kracht van de burgers van de staat, aldus Halbertsma in een brief aan het kamerlid L.C. Luzac. De werktuigen en sieraden van vroeger waren volgens hem de uitdrukking van de aard en het karakter van de oude Friezen. Een linnen mutsje en doekje uit Hindeloopen waren volgens Halbertsma niet zomaar een mutsje en doekje, maar een dracht, die verwees naar de oude Friese vrijheid. De Hindelooper kappen – wij hebben het al over de hoofddeksels in de vorm van een doos gehad- 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. Zo vergeleek hij het vlechten van het haar ook met de gewoonte om het haar op te knopen bij de Germaanse Sueben, zoals beschreven door de geschiedschrijver Tacitus (ca. 55 - ca. 120 na Chr.)
[...]
Het Fries Kabinet [kreeg] van Halbertsma een groot aantal objecten uit de volkscultuur ten geschenke zoals kleding en huisraad, merendeels afkomstig uit Hindeloopen.

Forum # 11 (okt. 18 - 21, 2011)

Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:55 AM
Otharus, on 31 August 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:
Knul's website (in Dutch) about his Oera Linda hoax-theory, starts with:

"In 1867 kwam het Oera Linda Boek aan het licht. Tien jaar later bewees J. Beckering Vinckers op taalkundige gronden dat er sprake was van een mystificatie. Daarna begon de zoektocht naar de schrijver van het bijzondere boek..."

Translated:
"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. After that the quest for the author of the remarkable book started... [* 'Beckering' was not part of his family name, but a given name]


So Knul believes that Vinckers' gave sufficient proof in 1876 that OLB has to be a hoax.

Here is BV's article, in dutch: http://www.oeralindaboek.nl/pdf/OLBVinckers.pdf

Can any of the Dutch readers (Knul, Abe, ?) point out or summarise the proof to me, because I never found it.

### Posted 18 October 2011 - 01:28 PM
Abramelin, on 18 October 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:
Well, it was nothing like a summary, but I talked about it here:
...
It's kind of hard to summarize, but that is how *I* understood Beckering Vincker's analysis.

Yes, thank you. So this was your post:

Abramelin, on 19 September 2011 - 10:47 PM, said:
We have discussed Vincker's early analysis of the OLB, and Otharus said that this Dutch, 19th century linguist was wrong with his conclusion that the OLB was written in a something resembling bad Old or phony Frisian.
But today I read his whole analysis more attentively, and came - through my meager knowledge of linguistics - to the conclusion that Vincker was right about the OLB language all along.... but also.... that Halbertsma is ruled out as a possible suspect. ...

And these were my questions about it (that were not answered yet):

Otharus, on 15 October 2011 - 01:13 PM, 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?

### Posted 18 October 2011 - 05:15 PM
Alewyn, on 17 October 2011 - 05:11 AM, said:
http://home.nordnet....heemstra02.html

Enfin la clé de l'Oera Linda Boek / Finally the key to the Oera Linda Boek

... Raubenheimer paints a convincing picture and well illustrated with numerous maps of the Frisian confederation to which humanity owes so much, and the disasters, including natural, which led to its decline. It thus adds to the history of Europe and makes a famous chapter in the Oera Linda Book’s legitimacy; while the criticism of the nineteenth century Calvinist fundamentalists belittled Friesland, and the Netherlands denied it.
... Raubenheimer’s book finally restores poor Ottema; who was right, but who was so jeered, reviled and ridiculed that he ended up committing suicide.

### Posted 18 October 2011 - 07:00 PM

Quotes J.B. Vinckers 1876:

"Het O.-L.-B. is een van de allerwonderlijkste boeken, die ooit ter wereld zijn verschenen." 
The OLB is one of the most amazing books, that were ever found in the world.

"Het merkwaardige boek vond manhafte verdedigers. Drie mannen vooral sprongen kloekmoedig voor de eer van het O.-L.-B. in de bres:
primo: Dr. J.G. OTTEMA,
secundo: Dr. ANNE TJITJES REITSMA,
tertio : Prof. Dr. VITRINGA."
"The remarkable book found brave defenders, three men in particular:
Dr. J.G. Ottema, Dr. A.T. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. Vitringa."

"Zoo even wordt mij bericht dat ook wijlen Mr. DE HAAN HETTEMA de taal van 't O.-L.B. verklaard heeft voor Friesch, ouder dan dat der O.friesche wetten!! 't Is haast niet te gelooven."
"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."

"Die voor-Christelijke Oera-Linda's houden er zeer bedenkelijke, uiterst geavanceerde denkbeelden op na."
"Those pre-Christian Oera-Linda's have a very worrying, utterly advanced paradigm."

"De voorchristelijke, schrijfzieke familie lijdt in een zeer erge mate aan etymologiseerzucht, een ziekte waaraan onze landgenooten reeds zeer vroeg hebben gelaboreerd."
"The prechristian write-sick family suffers of a severe form of etymolegomania, a dis-ease that has been an epidemic of our countrymen since the old times."

"Kostelijk is vooral de verklaring van Gedrosia als het land der gedrosten. (...) Volgens Grimm's wet moest het land Ghetrosia of Gethrosia heeten."
"Most delicious is the explanation of Gedrosia as the land of the 'gedrosten'. According to Grimm's law, the land was spelled Ghetrosia or Gethrosia."

"Dat Friesche geleerden in den jare onzes Heeren 1876, dat is 60 jaar nadat Grimm het 1ste deel zijner Deutsche grammatik heeft in 't licht gegeven, nog zulke vreemdelingen in de grammatica van de kostbare letterkundige overblijfsels der Friesche oudheid zijn, dat zij een afschuwelijk taalkundig knoeiwerk als het Oera-Linda-boek, na langdurige studie, voor een echt gedenkstuk van overoud Friesch hebben aangezien, ja, de barbaarsche wartaal waarin het is geschreven voor ouder en zuiverden verklaren dan de zoo zuivere taal der Oudfriesche oorkonden, dat is inderdaad een zeer betreurenswaardig verschijnsel."
"That Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876, that is 60 years after Grimm published the 1st part of his German Grammar, are such strangers in the grammar of the most precious linguistic remains of Old-Frisian, that they declared a horrible linguistic corruption to be overold Frisian, yes they declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the very pure language of the Oldfrisian Records... that is very sad indeed."

The above quotes are from J.B. Vinckers (1876), who was not able to prove that the OLB is a hoax.

### Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:06 PM
(re.post)
Some quotes from J.B. Vinckers' (1876) 'critical review' (my translation).

It's title:
"The falseness of the Oera Linda-Bôk, as proven by the the gibberish in which it was written"

"Gibberish, no better than Negro-English; gibberish, that makes the OLB a mark of infamy in the collection of most illustrous remains of old-frisian language."

"Another example of a clownish anachronism. But why do I say 'another anachronism', - the whole OLB is one single colossal anachronism from beginning to end, which for example is revealed in its long train of words, that only slowly emerged in the French and Dutch language in the Middle ages as degenerated Latin. Behold a mess, susceptible for expansion."

"I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

"But that some Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876 ... are still so ignorant of the grammar of precious literary remains of Frisian antiquity, that they accept a repulsive linguistic botch job like the OLB, after long term study, to be a true remains of overold Frisian, that they indeed, declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the flawless language of the Oldfrisian certificates, that is indeed an utterly deplorable phenomenon."

- - -
Original quotes in Dutch:

"De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk, aangetoond uit de wartaal waarin het geschreven is"

"een wartaal, geen haar beter dan Neger-Engelsch; een wartaal, die het O.-L.-B. maakt tot een schandvlek in de rij der hoogst gewigtige overblijfselen van O.friesche taal."

"Dit is dus weer een potsierlijk anachronisme. Doch wat praat ik van ‘weer een anachronisme,’ - het geheele O.-L.-B. is van 't begin tot het einde één enkel kolossaal anachronisme, dat zich onder anderen ook openbaart in dien langen sleep van woorden, welken we eerst in de middeleeuwen langzamerhand door verbastering van 't Latijn in den mond van Franschman of Nederlander in de wereld zien komen. Zie hier een zootje, dat voor veel vermeerdering vatbaar is."

"Het doel dat ik mij voorstelde is bereikt; ik heb de taal van het Oera-Linda-Boek belagchelijk willen maken."

"Maar dat Friesche geleerden in den jare onzes Heeren 1876 ... nog zulke vreemdelingen in de grammatica van de kostbare letterkundige overblijfsels der Friesche oudheid zijn, dat zij een afschuwelijk taalkundig knoeiwerk als het Oera-Linda-boek, na langdurige studie, voor een echt gedenkstuk van overoud Friesch hebben aangezien, ja, de barbaarsche wartaal waarin het is geschreven voor ouder en zuiverder verklaren dan de zoo zuivere taal der Oudfriesche oorkonden, dat is inderdaad een zeer betreurenswaardig verschijnsel."

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:11 AM
Abramelin, on 18 October 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:
Yeah, the guy turned sarcastic having to deal with something that was too hilarious for him to even discuss.

The following scholars had a different opinion:
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)

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:21 AM
Vinckers (1876) about the OLB and its language:

"dit gedrochtelijke onding"
"this monstrous absurdity"

"taalkundige krankzinnigheid"
"linguistic madness"

"... honderd maal schandelijker [...] dan een opstel in een vreemde taal van een jong mensch, dat zich taalkundig volkomen onbeslagen op het gladde ijs van een eindexamen heeft gewaagd."
"...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."

"De taal waarin dit product is geschreven, [is] een allerverfoeilijkst mengelmoes, een wartaal, gevloeid uit de pen van een zeker in andere opzigten niet onkundig, maar in de allereerste gronden van de spraakkunst der verwante Duitsche talen in 't algemeen, en van de O.friesche taal in 't bijzonder volkomen onbedreven persoon; een wartaal, geen haar beter dan Neger-Engelsch; een wartaal, die het O.-L.-B. maakt tot een schandvlek in de rij der hoogst gewigtige overblijfselen van O.friesche taal."
"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."

"Een ellendig zamenraapsel van oud en jong, zulk een bajert van spraakverwarring, die op elke bladzijde, neen, in elken regel van de 126 pagina's druks die het beslaat, voor 't oog van den kenner zijn onechte geboorte door onmiskenbare bewijzen zelf bloot legt."
"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"?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:48 AM
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."

(original quote: "... een onfeilbaar middel om over de oudheid en zuiverheid van de alleroudste Duitsche taaloverblijfselen, ook over Oudfriesch van 558 jaar voor Christus geboorte, met grond een oordeel te vellen.")

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.

~ ~ ~
Imagine:
A man dies.
Agent 1 says: "he was murdered".
Agent 2, 3, 4 and 5 say: "no, he died a natural death".
Agent 6 and 7 go try and find a murderer.
~ ~ ~

Jensma and Knul have made theories of who could have made the OLB, without first giving a sufficient answer to the question:
Why can OLB not be authentic?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 11:42 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. Beckering Vinckers compared the result with Oldfrisian and found that the text did not match that standard.

That the text did not match the Oldfrisian standard, does not mean the text can not be authentic.

What if the chosen standard was old-fashioned and in need of revision?

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?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 01:00 PM
Language can be spoken and written.

Written language is not always a reflection of spoken language.

In formal documents, other words and syntax are used than on the street.

The oldest known documents in Dutch and Frisian from the Middle-Ages were written by monks, who had learned to read and write in Latin.

They were not schooled to write down the spoken language.

In rural areas in The Netherlands (including Flanders), dialects have survived in uncultured, sometimes illitterate families.

Those families had lived in those areas for hundreds of years, without mixing much with outsiders.

Modern Dutch is not very much different from these raw dialects.

Modern 'Frisian' is an attempt to standardise all various dialects in the Dutch province Friesland.

When the language of the OLB is compared to various different rural dialects in North-Western Europe, more likeness will be found, than when it is compared to Medieval texts.

What does this prove?


### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:12 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:
If the OLB is true, then the further we get back in time (in Europe) the more these Nordic and German languages should resemble eachother. And what we get then should be very similar to the language used in the OLB. It isn't.

The modern versions of English, Dutch, Frisian, German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian are STILL similar to eachother.

The written varieties of those languages have become more a reflection of oral language, than they used to be (written text used to be more formal and mostly from authorities).

Through the ages there will have been countless varieties.

Schools in Holland have only been regulated since the last 200 years.

The more people stayed in the same area, without mixing much with newcomers, the more their language remained unchanged.

The language of the OLB is relatively similar to the aforementioned languages.

If it would have been a product of the 19th century, the language of the OLB would be the perfect reconstruction IMO of the proto-Frisian language.

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).

Quote
The reason the Icelandic language didn't change that much in a 1000 years is because the people there lived and live rather isolated, and the language is taught in schools.

The school system is not very old.

Language was taught from generation to generation.

People in rural areas of the low countries also lived rather isolated.

Their language will have changed more in the last hundred years, than in the many hundreds of years before that.

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:18 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:
OK, here's my problem.
The OLB is written in a language that resembles the language used in the Frisian Law texts of the 13th century. Gramatically correct or not, let's forget about that for a minute.
The OLB was first put on paper in the 7th century BC.
More than thousand years later we find texts (runes) in the area where most of the OLB took place, and the language has changed considerably.
Then - let's say 500-700 years later - people suddenly start again using the language as used in the OLB.
Weird, eh?

So you think those runes that were found represented all the different languages and dialects of that time, both spoken and carved? (BTW They may have been made in coded script; very clever in times of war.)

And do you believe that in the 13th century all people in our lands spoke just like in the few Law texts that have survived?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:26 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:
You must have missed that last post of mine, where I ended with "Weird, eh?".

No, I didn't miss that.
I understand that it is weird to someone who believes that those few runes are a representation of the spoken language of the people who lived here.
I claim that the language can not have changed that much in the last millennium, because of the similarities (to date) in the various N-W European languages and dialects.

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 03:42 PM
Abramelin, on 19 October 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:
Yes, and that's because they are still rather close to the language spoken in the 10-13th century AD, and very probably far away from the language spoken 2000 years before the 10-13th century.

What is your assumption based on?
What do you know of "spoken language" of the 10-13th century?

Quote
Those 'few runes' as you call them (like 200 short old Anglo-Frisian inscriptions) should contain a language even closer to the language of the OLB.

Why?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:27 PM
In the OLB, "JRTHA" is earth and "WR-ALDA" means over-old-one, world or universe ('god').
The German word for universe is "Weltall" which means: world-all
(the Dutch word is heelal, meaning: whole-all)
As I have suggested before, it's not unthinkable that "WR-ALDA" or "ALDA" evolved into "Allah".

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 04:40 PM
Me:
I claim that the language can not have changed that much in the last millennium, because of the similarities (to date) in the various N-W European languages and dialects.

You:
Yes, and that's because they are still rather close to the language spoken in the 10-13th century AD, and very probably far away from the language spoken 2000 years before the 10-13th century.

Me:
What is your assumption based on? What do you know of "spoken language" of the 10-13th century?

You:
I base my assumption on the fact that the European peoples didn't live isolated, and even those who lived 'relatively' isolated (rural areas) and spoke a language/dialect a few centuries older than what was spoken around them, would never have been able to withstand the impact of this newer language/dialect eventually.

What "newer language/dialect"?

###
You:
More than thousand years later we find texts (runes) in the area where most of the OLB took place, and the language has changed considerably.

Me:
So you think those runes that were found represented all the different languages and dialects of that time, both spoken and carved?
(...)
I understand that it is weird to someone who believes that those few runes are a representation of the spoken language of the people who lived here.

You:
Those 'few runes' as you call them (like 200 short old Anglo-Frisian inscriptions) should contain a language even closer to the language of the OLB.

Me:
Why?

You:
The 'why' is easily answered: the further back in time, the less time the language had to deviate and the more it would resemble the older language.
It's not like the Jews spoke Hebrew 3000 years ago, then 2000 years later their language started resembling Swedish or something, and then a thousand years after that it again looked like the Hebrew they spoke 3000 years ago.

The problem is, that we don't know if those runes represent the language of our Dutch or Westfrisian ancestors.

It is possible that those 'Fryans' only used wood and paper for writing, not stone.

It's possible that those stone-runes were left by intruders.

To use your example:

3000 BP - Jews spoke Hebrew
1000 BP - language starts to resemble Swedish
present - Jews speak Hebrew again

What if the sources of 1000 BP do not represent the actual language that was spoken, but resembled Swedish because of temporary influences from abroad?

### Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:57 PM
cormac mac airt, on 19 October 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:
... it's "Lego-linguistics to the rescue".

Since Wr-alda in OLB refers to what we call "God", and other cultures use(d) a similar word in the same context ("Veraldar God", "Weralden Olma"), it is not so far-fetched to relate it to Allah and it sounds almost the same as Alda. I also mentioned the German "Welt-all" (world-al) for Universe, which is in more natural cultures associated to (if not the same as) "God".

This was a good post:
Otharus, on 10 November 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:
There has been talk about how much of what is in OLB was already known to the 19th century elite.
I do not agree with Abram that they knew that much and certainly not "everything Puzzler posted"; what a nonsense.
Also, it was said that other sources with the same script are needed to prove that OLB contains old information.
Script basically represents sound. For most of history and for most people there was no script, only oral tradition.
If we find words that are used in other cultures that sound similar and have similar meanings, and when these words were not known to the 19th century Dutch/ Frisian elite, this is most interesting and can help increase the credibility of OLB being a genuine source of old information.
In the following I'd like to introduce an example to the discussion.

Jensma (p. 92-93 of "De Gemaskerde God"):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Posted 20 October 2011, 06:51 AM
cormac mac airt, on 19 October 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:
And just because one word, or part thereof, "sounds" like a similar word doesn't mean they're connected.

If there would only be sound similarity, I'd agree with you.
But since they have the same meaning too, it's not irrational to consider the possibility.

### Posted 21 October 2011, 08:51 AM
Knul, on 20 October 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:
It leaves the question, why they were used in the OLB. Did someone intend printing ? I can hardly imagine that. So there must be an other reason.

Notaries in the 18th century also used tildes (~~~) to fill up empty space, without intending printing. The reason was to prevent that someone else would add text later and pretend it was part of the original text.

In chapter 14 of "The Masked God" (p.255), Goffe Jensma shows that Cornelis Over de Linden in his notebooks sometimes placed comma's in the beginning of a new line, instead of at the end of a line. For him, this was proof that C.O.L. must have been the assumed copyist.

See my post:
Otharus, on 12 April 2011 - 04:44 AM, said:
The next 'proof' for the 'fact' that Cornelis must have held the pen from which the OLB-ink flowed, is that he sometimes placed a comma in the beginning of a new line, something we also see in the manuscript.

Example:
This is an example
, of comma's placed
in the beginning
, instead of at the
end of the line.

There's other explanations possible for this.
1) It's a peculiarity that his grandfather, who loved the manuscript, passed on to his descendant.
2) Cornelis, studying the manuscript and identifying more and more with it, copied the habit. He only had primary school education and was mostly a self-educated, and educated by family.

Did Cornelis make the manuscript, or did the manuscript - directly or indirectly - make Cornelis?