Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:55 PM
Two photographs of the original that have not been posted here yet.
Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:09 AM
Knul, on 26 April 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:
You should have a look at my renewed website: www.rodinbook.nl .
I saw something you might want to reconsider.
"Neem nimmer kniebuigende van uw naaste dank aan, deze behoort aan Wralda's geest."
=> never kneel when you accept thanks
What makes more sense: that the one who thanks kneels, or the one who receives thanks?
It's the one that thanks who kneels, not the one who accepts it.
Therefore I think it should be:
"Neem nimmer kniebuigende-dank van uw naaste aan, ..."
=> never accept "kneeling thanks"
=> be modest in accepting thanks from your friends when you have helped them, don't let them kneel or otherwise exaggerate
Posted 28 April 2012 - 08:54 PM
Knul, on 27 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:
I am not sure. The idea is, that one should only bow for Wralda, not for anyone else. s. Letterkundige Verlustingen p. 363http://books.google....uigend"&f=false .
That just doesn't make sense IMO.
Your translation says (paraphrased):
"Never kneel when you accept thanks from your friends. They should thank Wralda."
It think that what was ment is this:
"Never let your friends kneel for you out of gratitude. Let them rather thank Wralda."
There is normal "thanks", and there is "kneebending-thanks" or "kneeling-thanks".
You don't want your friends to kneel for you in gratitude, that's embarrassing.
Let them rather thank God and help you next time.
You're not gonna kneel for them either, are you?
Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:37 PM
From "Frieslands Oudheid" (Friesland's antiquity) by H. Halbertsma (2000), p.33-34 (my improvised translation):
Suetonius writes [...] that Drusus returned to Rome in 11 BC, urged by Augustus [...]. But Augustus' plan, the conquest of total Germania up to the Elbe, had not succeeded yet, so Drusus moved down the Rhine once more in 9 BC, for the fourth time. At this last occasion, he marched through the area of the Chatti and Suebi to that of the Cherusci, in the basin of the mid-Weser. After having crossed this river, he only returned after having reached the Elbe. According to Cassius Dio, he would have made a U-turn, after a Latin speaking, Germanic woman of superhuman dimensions had prophesied his early death. Still deeply in Germanic territory, he broke his fibula when falling from his horse, his blood got poisoned as a result, causing his death 30 days later [...] on the 14th of September in the year 9 BC. Said Suetonius.
Tall, educated women that make prophecies.
Where have we read that before?
Suetonius writes [...] that Drusus returned to Rome in 11 BC, urged by Augustus [...]. But Augustus' plan, the conquest of total Germania up to the Elbe, had not succeeded yet, so Drusus moved down the Rhine once more in 9 BC, for the fourth time. At this last occasion, he marched through the area of the Chatti and Suebi to that of the Cherusci, in the basin of the mid-Weser. After having crossed this river, he only returned after having reached the Elbe. According to Cassius Dio, he would have made a U-turn, after a Latin speaking, Germanic woman of superhuman dimensions had prophesied his early death. Still deeply in Germanic territory, he broke his fibula when falling from his horse, his blood got poisoned as a result, causing his death 30 days later [...] on the 14th of September in the year 9 BC. Said Suetonius.
Tall, educated women that make prophecies.
Where have we read that before?
Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:46 AM
Knul, on 29 April 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:
Halbertsma zegt hiervan: ‘De knieval als uitdrukking der overmachtige indruk van verbrijzeling en vernedering voor de troon van de oneindige, was het enige gebaar dat de Doopsgezinden maakten.'
And I fell at his feet to worship him.
And he said unto me,
See thou do it not:
I am thy fellow servant,
and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:
worship God:
for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
(King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))
Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:00 AM
Van Gorp, on 28 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:
This reminds me of an episode of Simon Stevin's TSamespraeck between Ian and Pieter -> E V E R E D E N H E Y T.
Simon Stevin saw the Duytsch language as most appropriate for science because of the "Duidelijkheid" (Direct Significance) of the words used.
One syllable words are more common in Dietsch than in Latin/Greek.
By this and their clear understanding, he and others claim Dietsch to be older and more authentic.
Simon Stevin saw the Duytsch language as most appropriate for science because of the "Duidelijkheid" (Direct Significance) of the words used.
One syllable words are more common in Dietsch than in Latin/Greek.
By this and their clear understanding, he and others claim Dietsch to be older and more authentic.
Thank you for the text and your translation, Van Gorp.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:44 PM
The English Wiki page about the OLB starts like this (my underlinings):
The Oera Linda Book is a 19th century manuscript written in Old Frisian. It purports to cover historical, mythological, and religious themes of remote antiquity, compiled between 2194 BC and AD 803.
The second underlined part will give any new reader the impression that it is very unlikely that the manuscript is authentic, but it is incorrect:
The manuscript is supposed to have been compiled in the 6th century BCE, with some parts added later (ca. 300 BCE and ca. 'year zero'), and two copyist letters from 803 CE and 1256 CE.
So the timespan in which it would have been compiled is ca. 600 years, NOT 3000 years as suggested on Wikipedia.
The first sentence, that it "is a 19th century manuscript" is also dubious, as is proven with the following:
Jensma (2004) p.16 about OLB's reception history (my translation and underlining):
"It was the beginning of a discussion that has not ended up until today. In this debate the same questions keep coming back.Is the book authentic or not? If it is not authentic, is it a forgery or a mystification? Who is the author? What is his motive? Although many through the years have thought to have found the solution, up until now no-one has succeeded in demonstrating convincingly enough how things really are, that the case can be considered to be solved."
Original text:
"Het was het begin van een discussie die tot op de dag van vandaag wordt gevoerd. In dat debat duiken steeds weer dezelfde vragen op. Is het boek echt of niet? Als het niet echt is, is het dan een vervalsing of een mystificatie? Wie is de auteur? Wat is zijn motief? Hoewel er velen in de loop van de tijd hebben gedacht dat ze dé [sic] oplossing hadden gevonden, is er tot op heden niemand in geslaagd om op een zo overtuigende wijze te laten zien hoe de zaak dan werkelijk in elkaar heeft gestoken, dat de zaak als opgelost kan worden beschouwd."
Jensma in his study did not ask the question whether the manuscript is authentic or not, he simply assumed it is fake.
And his solution, that Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden would have concocted it together, also didn't convince the experts, as I have showed earlier:
Otharus, on 14 October 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:
Therefore, the Wiki-page needs to be revised, and made more neutral.
OLB is claimed but still not proven to be a 19th century manuscript.
I have said this before: if the paper would really be that young, it should be possible to prove that within one week. But they have been examining it for several years now, and still no clear answer!
The Oera Linda Book is a 19th century manuscript written in Old Frisian. It purports to cover historical, mythological, and religious themes of remote antiquity, compiled between 2194 BC and AD 803.
The second underlined part will give any new reader the impression that it is very unlikely that the manuscript is authentic, but it is incorrect:
The manuscript is supposed to have been compiled in the 6th century BCE, with some parts added later (ca. 300 BCE and ca. 'year zero'), and two copyist letters from 803 CE and 1256 CE.
So the timespan in which it would have been compiled is ca. 600 years, NOT 3000 years as suggested on Wikipedia.
The first sentence, that it "is a 19th century manuscript" is also dubious, as is proven with the following:
Jensma (2004) p.16 about OLB's reception history (my translation and underlining):
"It was the beginning of a discussion that has not ended up until today. In this debate the same questions keep coming back.Is the book authentic or not? If it is not authentic, is it a forgery or a mystification? Who is the author? What is his motive? Although many through the years have thought to have found the solution, up until now no-one has succeeded in demonstrating convincingly enough how things really are, that the case can be considered to be solved."
Original text:
"Het was het begin van een discussie die tot op de dag van vandaag wordt gevoerd. In dat debat duiken steeds weer dezelfde vragen op. Is het boek echt of niet? Als het niet echt is, is het dan een vervalsing of een mystificatie? Wie is de auteur? Wat is zijn motief? Hoewel er velen in de loop van de tijd hebben gedacht dat ze dé [sic] oplossing hadden gevonden, is er tot op heden niemand in geslaagd om op een zo overtuigende wijze te laten zien hoe de zaak dan werkelijk in elkaar heeft gestoken, dat de zaak als opgelost kan worden beschouwd."
Jensma in his study did not ask the question whether the manuscript is authentic or not, he simply assumed it is fake.
And his solution, that Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden would have concocted it together, also didn't convince the experts, as I have showed earlier:
Otharus, on 14 October 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:
Goffe Th. Jensma wrote a thesis about the OLB and is generally accepted to be the 'official authority' on the subject.
...
3. Whether the OLB is (partly) a genuine source or not was not one of his research questions, the focus was on who could have made it up and why.
4. At a public discussion on the occasion of his promotion, none of the speakers agreed with his conclusion that François Haverschmidt must have been the genius behind OLB. (see below)
...
ad 4
Source: Leeuwarder Courant, friday 10 december 2004
Dutch title of article: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"
Translation of relevant fragment (by me):
"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the OLB."
Original fragment in Dutch:
"Hoewel de sprekers zonder uitzondering vol lof waren over het werk van Jensma, had hij niemand kunnen overtuigen van zijn waarheid dat François Haverschmidt de belangrijkste auteur van het Oera Linda-boek is."
...
3. Whether the OLB is (partly) a genuine source or not was not one of his research questions, the focus was on who could have made it up and why.
4. At a public discussion on the occasion of his promotion, none of the speakers agreed with his conclusion that François Haverschmidt must have been the genius behind OLB. (see below)
...
ad 4
Source: Leeuwarder Courant, friday 10 december 2004
Dutch title of article: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"
Translation of relevant fragment (by me):
"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the OLB."
Original fragment in Dutch:
"Hoewel de sprekers zonder uitzondering vol lof waren over het werk van Jensma, had hij niemand kunnen overtuigen van zijn waarheid dat François Haverschmidt de belangrijkste auteur van het Oera Linda-boek is."
Therefore, the Wiki-page needs to be revised, and made more neutral.
OLB is claimed but still not proven to be a 19th century manuscript.
I have said this before: if the paper would really be that young, it should be possible to prove that within one week. But they have been examining it for several years now, and still no clear answer!
Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:01 PM
Another important fragment from "De Gemaskerde God" (The Masked God) by Goffe Jensma (2004), foreword page 5 (my translation, for original see scan).
The Oera Linda-book is one of the most intriguing mystifications in the western history of literature, because it is not sure if it is one. Very many sources are available to write the history of this book and its author, and it is fascinating that thosesources constantly keep contradicting each other in all possible ways. Time and again they want to be reread and rearranged, and every time they try to upset the researcher again and drive him insane. For almost one and a half century the book succeeds in doing that. Nobody knows for sure what exactly the book purports, let alone who wrote it. Some see it as a confused story or a corny students joke, others believe in it as if it were a religious text and refuse to accept it as a mystification.
The Oera Linda-book is one of the most intriguing mystifications in the western history of literature, because it is not sure if it is one. Very many sources are available to write the history of this book and its author, and it is fascinating that thosesources constantly keep contradicting each other in all possible ways. Time and again they want to be reread and rearranged, and every time they try to upset the researcher again and drive him insane. For almost one and a half century the book succeeds in doing that. Nobody knows for sure what exactly the book purports, let alone who wrote it. Some see it as a confused story or a corny students joke, others believe in it as if it were a religious text and refuse to accept it as a mystification.
Conclusions:
It is not sure if the manuscript is a mystification, and it has driven many researchers insane.
This means it is not at all as obviously fake as is usually suggested, for example on Wikipedia!
Considering the huge scientific value it would have if it would be authentic, OLB deserves a serious examination.
If it would be fake, this should really be very easy to establish.
The fact that this appears to NOT be easy at all, can only mean one thing IMO.
It has to be authentic.
Several scholars would suffer a terrible loss of face now.
It is not sure if the manuscript is a mystification, and it has driven many researchers insane.
This means it is not at all as obviously fake as is usually suggested, for example on Wikipedia!
Considering the huge scientific value it would have if it would be authentic, OLB deserves a serious examination.
If it would be fake, this should really be very easy to establish.
The fact that this appears to NOT be easy at all, can only mean one thing IMO.
It has to be authentic.
Several scholars would suffer a terrible loss of face now.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:58 PM
One more Demosthenic fragment from "De Gemaskerde God" (The Masked God) by Goffe Jensma (2004), page 17-18 (my translation, for original see scan).
A good example of a researcher with a dilemma, is professor W. Hellinga from Amsterdam. Initially this famous codicologist did not want to be pushed into the role of detective, and he had a different - possibly more prudent - point of view. The value of the OLB-affair, he believed, was 'in the debate between supporters and opponents of the document's authenticity. For that reflects a piece of culture- and science-history.'
But he got caught up in the case, so the detective in him pushed the prudent filologist aside. Together with his students he took the train to Leeuwarden in 1958, to unravel all collected sources in the library and archives. 'Professor Hellinga about to tackle the OLB-mystery with 18 students', was a headline in the Frisian newspaper. "Never before has someone approached this intriguing job with so much 'concentrated power' as prof.dr. W.Gs. Hellinga." All relevant sources were traced and examined. The quest failed miserably. Hellinga could or dared no longer suggest a solution. It is known from letters and reports of lectures, that he entertained suspicions in the direction of a certain Stadermann, an escaped German revolutionary, who had not been considered a possible candidate before. A three page article in a memorial book two years later was the end result. 'Renewal of the Oera-Linda Bôk study' it was titled. The investigation had changed nothing at all.The only difference was, that what two years earlier fermly had been termed 'investigation', was now played down as a 'pilot study by eightteen students'. Hellinga afterwards never again touched the subject.
A good example of a researcher with a dilemma, is professor W. Hellinga from Amsterdam. Initially this famous codicologist did not want to be pushed into the role of detective, and he had a different - possibly more prudent - point of view. The value of the OLB-affair, he believed, was 'in the debate between supporters and opponents of the document's authenticity. For that reflects a piece of culture- and science-history.'
But he got caught up in the case, so the detective in him pushed the prudent filologist aside. Together with his students he took the train to Leeuwarden in 1958, to unravel all collected sources in the library and archives. 'Professor Hellinga about to tackle the OLB-mystery with 18 students', was a headline in the Frisian newspaper. "Never before has someone approached this intriguing job with so much 'concentrated power' as prof.dr. W.Gs. Hellinga." All relevant sources were traced and examined. The quest failed miserably. Hellinga could or dared no longer suggest a solution. It is known from letters and reports of lectures, that he entertained suspicions in the direction of a certain Stadermann, an escaped German revolutionary, who had not been considered a possible candidate before. A three page article in a memorial book two years later was the end result. 'Renewal of the Oera-Linda Bôk study' it was titled. The investigation had changed nothing at all.The only difference was, that what two years earlier fermly had been termed 'investigation', was now played down as a 'pilot study by eightteen students'. Hellinga afterwards never again touched the subject.
Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:41 AM
Prof.dr. G.Th. Jensma (2004) Groningen University:
"The Oera Linda-book is one of the most intriguing mystifications in the western history of literature, because it is not sure if it is one." (1)
'Dbachmann' (2010), editor of the English Wikipedia-page about the OLB (in "talk"-section):
"I find it hard to believe that anyone took this as "genuine" even in the 1800s. I suppose there were cranks and fools then as now, but just as tend to disregard contemporary crackpots under WP:DUE, I find it difficult to believe that people who thought this was in any way "genuine" back in the 1870s carry any sort of weight. To anyone with half an education and half a brain this must have been as obvious back in 1870 as it is now."
prof.dr. W.Gs. Hellinga (ca.1958), University of Amsterdam:
"The value and meaning of the OLB-affair is in the debate between supporters and opponents of the document's authenticity. For that reflects a piece of culture- and science-history." (2) ~ ~ ~
Original quotes:
(1) "Het Oera Linda-boek is één van de meest intrigerende mystificaties uit de westerse literatuurgeschiedenis, want is het dat wel?"
(2) "De waarde en de betekenis van de Oera Linda-boek-affaire ligt in de strijd van de voor- en tegenstanders van de echtheid van het document. Daarin weerspiegelt zich namelijk een stuk cultuur- en wetenschapsgeschiedenis."
"The Oera Linda-book is one of the most intriguing mystifications in the western history of literature, because it is not sure if it is one." (1)
'Dbachmann' (2010), editor of the English Wikipedia-page about the OLB (in "talk"-section):
"I find it hard to believe that anyone took this as "genuine" even in the 1800s. I suppose there were cranks and fools then as now, but just as tend to disregard contemporary crackpots under WP:DUE, I find it difficult to believe that people who thought this was in any way "genuine" back in the 1870s carry any sort of weight. To anyone with half an education and half a brain this must have been as obvious back in 1870 as it is now."
prof.dr. W.Gs. Hellinga (ca.1958), University of Amsterdam:
"The value and meaning of the OLB-affair is in the debate between supporters and opponents of the document's authenticity. For that reflects a piece of culture- and science-history." (2) ~ ~ ~
Original quotes:
(1) "Het Oera Linda-boek is één van de meest intrigerende mystificaties uit de westerse literatuurgeschiedenis, want is het dat wel?"
(2) "De waarde en de betekenis van de Oera Linda-boek-affaire ligt in de strijd van de voor- en tegenstanders van de echtheid van het document. Daarin weerspiegelt zich namelijk een stuk cultuur- en wetenschapsgeschiedenis."
Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:52 AM
In my experience, the participants in a debate who use the strongest language to discredit their opponents, are usually not the ones that turn out to be right.
Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:59 PM
[131/28] THA LÉKA ÀND BRÉKA THÉR THA BROK.MANNA MITHBROCHT HÀVE
Could this word be related to the tribe-name "Bructeri"?
~ ~ ~
Bructeri
Germanic tribe; uncertain etymology of the name; they were divided into the ‘small’ and the ‘large’ B. (Str. 7,1,3f.; Ptol. 2,11,6f.; 9) and settled between IJssel, Lippe and the upper reaches of the Ems, or rather between the upper reaches of the Ems and the Weser. Defeated by Drusus in 12 BC, they took part in the fight against Varus, and, with their seer Veleda, were involved in the Batavian revolt. After AD 98, they were decimated by the Chamavi and Angrivarii and driven…
http://referencework...ructeri-e220530
Could this word be related to the tribe-name "Bructeri"?
~ ~ ~
Bructeri
Germanic tribe; uncertain etymology of the name; they were divided into the ‘small’ and the ‘large’ B. (Str. 7,1,3f.; Ptol. 2,11,6f.; 9) and settled between IJssel, Lippe and the upper reaches of the Ems, or rather between the upper reaches of the Ems and the Weser. Defeated by Drusus in 12 BC, they took part in the fight against Varus, and, with their seer Veleda, were involved in the Batavian revolt. After AD 98, they were decimated by the Chamavi and Angrivarii and driven…
http://referencework...ructeri-e220530
Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:19 PM
Abramelin, on 10 May 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:
Veleda was a völva (priestess and prophet) of the Germanic tribe of the Bructeri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleda
... de prototype van de Romeinsche Vestadienst en de Vestaalsche maagden.
Men denke hierbij aan Velleda (Welda) en Aurinia bij Tacitus Germ. 8 Hist. IV. 61. 65. V. 22. 24. Annal. I. 51 en Gauna de opvolgster van Velleda bij Dio Cassius fragm. 49.
Van de burgt van Velleda spreekt Tacitus als eene edita turris; Verg. hier bl. 146.
In Sandbach's translation:
... the prototype of the Roman Vestal Virgins.
We are reminded here of Velleda (Welda) and Aurinia in Tacitus ("Germania," 8. Hist., iv. 61, 65; v. 22, 24. "Annals," L 54), and of Gauna, the successor of Velleda, in Dio Cassius (Fragments, 49). Tacitus speaks of the town of Velleda as "edita turris," page 146.
Quote
brook (n.)
"small stream," O.E. broc "flowing stream, torrest," of obscure origin, probably from P.Gmc. *broka- which yielded words in German (Bruch) and Dutch (broek) that have a sense of "marsh." In Sussex and Kent, it means "water-meadow," and in plural, "low, marshy ground."
"small stream," O.E. broc "flowing stream, torrest," of obscure origin, probably from P.Gmc. *broka- which yielded words in German (Bruch) and Dutch (broek) that have a sense of "marsh." In Sussex and Kent, it means "water-meadow," and in plural, "low, marshy ground."
Westfrisian villages with "broek": Lutjebroek, Grootebroek, Hensbroek, Broek op Langedijk.
Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:37 PM
Abramelin, on 10 May 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:
...their king, or visible Uald.
...
Uald is of Germanic origin.
...
Uald is of Germanic origin.
A few examples:
VNDER.ET WELD THES MAGÍ
THAT.ER WELDIG SKOLDE WERTHA VR.ET ÉLLE LÁND
THRVCH THÀT WELD SYNRA WÉPNE
WELDIGE LYDA
OVIR ELLA WILDE HJU WELDA
ÀT WELD THAT FON JO UT.GONG
ÉVIN FRY BILYVA FON VNFRYA WELD
... etcetera.
So Weleda could have ment something like "powerful"?
Cornelis Over de Linden knew more about this word.
Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:15 PM
Kanttekeningen bij het OERA LINDA BOEK, by G.J. van der Meij (1978):
Nu, de Grave weet dit reeds in 1806 (1 I, p. 178) zij 't in verband met de geschiedenis der Brackmannen, welk volk uit de omgeving van Antwerpen, zich in de voortijd zou hebben bevonden aan de oevers van de Gangas (1 1, p. 1 70) en daar gekomen was vanuit Europa!’
Les Brackmannes sont forcés de convexer quilt sent eux-mémes étrangers au fords du Gange. Brackman keut donc d ire domme du Bracklant. La Brabant a porti autrefois Ie nom de Propontis el c'esl de la qua la mar grecque de Marmora a recu son nom de Propontide domme I'HeI Inspant de Hel Ie symbool de Hol land soaur de Phryxus (/a friseert.
Les Brackmannes étoient des long cautie d'études dans IeS gans qui s'excercoient dans les écoles et sent obligés de faire un colleges de leur université a Bénares (p. 173).
Niet alleen dat de Grave de Europese cultuur eerst naar India laat gaan en vandaar weer terug ziet keren naar Europa, welke denkbeelden 't OLB heeft overgenomen of zelfstandig heeft bedacht, de episode over de Brackmannen doet ons op onze qui-vive zijn wanneer 't OLB eveneens over de Brokmanna spreekt (p. 178).
In onze toelichting (haast. I I I) wezen wij de vertaling van Ottema als Brokmannen af. Wij zagen hierin 't woord’brukmen-gebruiken'' dat heel wel in de tekst van 't verhaal past. Maar misschien is de auteur ook wel geinspireerd geweest door de naam Brakmannen - de gareerden uit een vroeg tijdperk die naar Europa waren teruggekeerd (met hun leken en gebreken), plus het feit dat Strabo hen als een in India levende volksstam vermeldt.
De fantasieen gaan voort. De Engelsen zouden volgens de Grave in Benares nog een oud handschrift hebben ontdekt, waarin het Europese vaderland der Brakmannen (p. 176/1 78) zou zijn beschreven, terwijl hij er nogmaals op zinspeelt dat evenals nu onze zending en missie - voorheen toch ook wel Europese cultuurdragers naar Aziè kunnen zijn gegaan.
(from Knul's website)
Nu, de Grave weet dit reeds in 1806 (1 I, p. 178) zij 't in verband met de geschiedenis der Brackmannen, welk volk uit de omgeving van Antwerpen, zich in de voortijd zou hebben bevonden aan de oevers van de Gangas (1 1, p. 1 70) en daar gekomen was vanuit Europa!’
Les Brackmannes sont forcés de convexer quilt sent eux-mémes étrangers au fords du Gange. Brackman keut donc d ire domme du Bracklant. La Brabant a porti autrefois Ie nom de Propontis el c'esl de la qua la mar grecque de Marmora a recu son nom de Propontide domme I'HeI Inspant de Hel Ie symbool de Hol land soaur de Phryxus (/a friseert.
Les Brackmannes étoient des long cautie d'études dans IeS gans qui s'excercoient dans les écoles et sent obligés de faire un colleges de leur université a Bénares (p. 173).
Niet alleen dat de Grave de Europese cultuur eerst naar India laat gaan en vandaar weer terug ziet keren naar Europa, welke denkbeelden 't OLB heeft overgenomen of zelfstandig heeft bedacht, de episode over de Brackmannen doet ons op onze qui-vive zijn wanneer 't OLB eveneens over de Brokmanna spreekt (p. 178).
In onze toelichting (haast. I I I) wezen wij de vertaling van Ottema als Brokmannen af. Wij zagen hierin 't woord’brukmen-gebruiken'' dat heel wel in de tekst van 't verhaal past. Maar misschien is de auteur ook wel geinspireerd geweest door de naam Brakmannen - de gareerden uit een vroeg tijdperk die naar Europa waren teruggekeerd (met hun leken en gebreken), plus het feit dat Strabo hen als een in India levende volksstam vermeldt.
De fantasieen gaan voort. De Engelsen zouden volgens de Grave in Benares nog een oud handschrift hebben ontdekt, waarin het Europese vaderland der Brakmannen (p. 176/1 78) zou zijn beschreven, terwijl hij er nogmaals op zinspeelt dat evenals nu onze zending en missie - voorheen toch ook wel Europese cultuurdragers naar Aziè kunnen zijn gegaan.
(from Knul's website)
Posted 11 May 2012 - 06:21 PM
Abramelin, on 11 May 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:
Much of the explanations of these names are based on socalled 'folk etymology', or translating a foreign or simply unfamiliar word with something from your own language.
Quote
And another thing: from Tacitus I understand the Sicambri were not living at the coasts.
So, either someone fabricated an etymology to explain Sicambri, or the Sekampar or not the same as the Sicambri.
So, either someone fabricated an etymology to explain Sicambri, or the Sekampar or not the same as the Sicambri.
It is very well possible that the name originally meant Sea-warriors and that the tribe moved more inland later, keeping the name.
Just think of family names, for example:
People that are called "Van Dijk" don't have to live on or near a dike.
People with the name "De Boer" don't have to be farmers.
Posted 12 May 2012 - 10:50 AM
Abramelin, on 12 May 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:
It's strange, then, that the OLB uses a word that can only mean 'leech' or 'blood sucker' :
... fol blodsûgar, pogga aend feniniga snâka...
... fol blodsûgar, pogga aend feniniga snâka...
It was supposedly written '1005 years after Aldland sank' (ca. 1200 BCE).
The quote with VAMPIRA is from Minno's notes [035/13].
Minno was a contemporary of Nyhellénja a.k.a. Minerva.
She lived in the 6th century 'after Aldland sank' (ca. 1600 BCE).
OLB has many examples of different words with the same meaning.
BLODSUGAR is literally blood-sucker, the word VAMPIRA is unsure.
It would make sense though, if PIRA means 'worm' (dutch: pier).
Therefore, it is not at all strange that in OLB both VAMPIRA and BLODSUGAR are used as names for what we term "leach" (dutch: bloedzuiger).
Posted 13 May 2012 - 12:53 PM
Van Gorp, on 13 May 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:
"Vampires had existed in folklore and legend for hundreds of years, back to ancient times."
But I also wondered where the word itself then originated.
But I also wondered where the word itself then originated.
Anyway, it more than likely that the concept is much older than any known record of it.
Abe, I'd like to analyze your Vampire argument.
I think this is basically your drift:
It is obvious that a vampire as we know it was meant,
which proves OLB must be fake,
because that concept is a 19th century one.
Here's my drift:
1. Whether VAMPÍRA is translated with "leech" or with "vampire", in both cases it makes sense.
2. The etymology of "vampire" (dutch: vampier) is unknown. That suggests it is a very old word. Let us agree that language is much older than the oldest record of it. Since "pier" means worm, a plausible interpretation is, that "vampier" (a creature that sucks blood) originally meant a bloodsucking worm or leech (dutch: bloedzuiger => bloodsucker).
3. Even if whoever wrote that fragment had a vampire in mind of the type that we know from 19th century literature, that does not mean that the OLB has to be of later date. The word and concept may be thousands of years old.
4. Conclusion: this argument does not prove that OLB has to be a hoax.
Posted 16 May 2012 - 03:26 PM
Abramelin, on 16 May 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:
I posted a long time ago that it could very well be that he wrote the OLB (or most of it) for his own pleasure and entertainment with no intention at all to have it published.
If he had, it would have come out.
I think we can agree it is not something anyone could make in a rainy afternoon.
Quote
You know as well as I do that time is never a problem when you do what you love to do most.
As he said, what he would have loved most, is finish that dictionary.
Appearantly, he didn't have time enough for that.
