Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:02 AM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:
I said 2600 years because that was when the OLB is supposed to have been put on paper the first time.
And whatever text (in runes) they have found throughout (Northern) Europe, the syntax is always totally different from any modern Germanic language, including Frisian and Dutch.
And whatever text (in runes) they have found throughout (Northern) Europe, the syntax is always totally different from any modern Germanic language, including Frisian and Dutch.
Well if it doesn't change in 2000 years, why would it change in 600 years more?
Runic inscriptions will hardly reflect spoken language, they will more be like code.
OLB is the only known source of prechristian 'Dutch'.
Appearantly syntax didn't change.
That some people find it hard to imagine, is not a valid argument against the authenticity.
Many people found it hard to imagine that Darwin's theory was right.
I have shown that almost all of my ancestors from seven generations back came from Westfriesland. For their ancestors it will mostly be the same. People would not go far from home and only marry someone that spoke the same language. I know that some people's ancestors are from all over the place. Their culture is really more 'bastardised', more confused, literally. Let's simply do a thought experiment. Texel; people have lived there for thousands of years. Why would syntax have changed dramatically? Children learn it in the first few years mostly from their mother, brothers, sisters. In areas where there have been many wars it may be different, but not on an island like that.
Anyway, I don't find it hard to imagine at all that the OLB-syntax is authentic.
We can disagree about that, but the point is, that the fact that some people find it difficult to imagine, means nothing at all.
Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:42 AM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:
Well, read Beowulf or any other old English text of around the 8th century (or before) and you will see what I mean: you will recognize many Old Germanic words, but the syntax is very different.
Do you think people on Texel will have spoken that language in the the 8th century?
I don't.
The only real wars in North-Holland in the last 2000 years were the counts of 'Holland' trying to subdue Westfriesland, in which they only succeeded in the late 13th century.
Those counts from Holland will have been from Merovingean royal descent, judging by the name Theuderic (Diederik, Dirk) most of them had. Just like Friso did 1000 years earlier to get more influence, they will have married Frisian women (also because they were most beautiful and wise of course), and after a few generations they could have themselves be called 'comes Frisia', but that didn't mean the Frisians were willing to pay taxes. Hence the wars. In 1297 the whole male population was murdered, but the women remained and they will have taught their children the old language, although some terms may have become taboo, like after every war.
There may also have been a few Danish invasions around the time of Christenings, but then again, it was men coming, not changing much of the 'mother-tongue'.
There is no reason to believe that language in North-Holland changed much between the time of the Romans (who stayed below Rhine anyway) and the arrival of the Franks/ Merovingeans.
Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:44 AM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:
This was not a book with mere formulas or incantations or codes, although I should add that it is suggested that Wulfila tried to stay as close as possible to the Latin and/or Greek versions of the Bible he must have used.
That's the whole point. All of the oldest sources were written by Latin schooled monks.
Nothing (other than OLB) is saved from Westfrisian spoken language.
Posted 09 June 2012 - 03:32 PM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:
Then we go back centuries in time, and the language changes.
Why?
Quote
Did the Frisians speak a similar language as Old English (Beowulf style or older)?
Quite probably for it is known that when Willibrord tried to convert them to Christianity he didn't need an interpretor/translator.
Quite probably for it is known that when Willibrord tried to convert them to Christianity he didn't need an interpretor/translator.
Why do you think Willibrord spoke Beowulf style Old-English?
If the Westfrisians would have spoken that Beowulf style language, why and how would it have changed in only a few hundred years into Frisian/ Dutch?
In studying the OLB and Oldfrisian, I have learned that English is much more a bastardised language than Frisian and Dutch. F and D are more pure and 'in between' English, German and the Scandinavian languages. So it would only make sense if they are closer to the original 'Germanic'. I don't know much about English/ Brittish history, but it looks like there have been more wars and mixing of cultures and languages. Considering that even today Great Brittain knows several very different dialects, the 'Beowulf-style language' will not be the only Old-English that there must have been.
Posted 09 June 2012 - 04:37 PM
Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:
The language used (idiom and grammar) in the OLB is very similar to what we read in those 13th century Frisian Law Texts.
We must be aware, that the OLB language (as we know it) may not be what it was when it was first compiled in the 6th C. BC.
Copyists tend to make the text they copy more understandable.
There may have been many copyists other than Liko and Hidde, all may have changed bits.
The last copy (1256 BC) may represent what was understandable in that time.
Personally I don't think that language would have had to change so much within a strong culture, where people tended to chose to marry only people of there own culture.
But this is just to remind ourselves that - when OLB is authentic - it still is a 13th century copy, so we are not sure if it perfectly reflects the language of the original version.
