1871-1877 Ottema various publications - Revision history

Jan: update

2026-05-11T08:06:35Z

update

Jan at 10:23, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T10:23:29Z

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *1876 (March) '''Deventer Courant''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1876 Ottema Dev. Crt.|'''JJK 89''' ''De Deventer courant en het Oera Linda Bok'']]]</small>
 *1876 (Oct.) '''Manuscript existed before 1600''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1876 Ottema Thet OLB|'''JJK 129''' ''Het handschrift van Thet Oera Linda Bok heeft al langen tijd vóór het jaar 1600 bestaan'']]]</small>
-*1877 (March) '''Reply to ''Who wrote ...?''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O|'''JJK 162''' ''(Antwoord op) Wie heeft het O.L.B. geschreven?'']]]</small>
+*1877 (March) '''Reply to ''Who wrote the Oera Linda Book?''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O|'''JJK 162''' ''(Antwoord op) Wie heeft het O.L.B. geschreven?'']]]</small>
-*1877 (Sept.) '''Reply to ''The Punjab Colony...''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O|'''JJK 185''' ''Bespr. van: De Pandschâb Kolonie van het Oera Linda Bok, door J.F. Berk'']]]</small>
+*1877 (Sept.) '''Reply to ''The Punjab Colony of the Oera Linda Book''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O|'''JJK 185''' ''Bespr. van: De Pandschâb Kolonie van het Oera Linda Bok, door J.F. Berk'']]]</small>
 Also see separate pages:
@@ Line 536: / Line 536: @@
 ==1877==
-=== Reply to ''Who wrote ...?'' ===
+=== Reply to ''Who wrote the Oera Linda Book?'' ===
-=== Reply to The Punjab Colony... ===
+In his correspondence with me, he often used Old Frisian words, which he then wrote in Old Frisian <small>[the wheel-based]</small> letters.
 [[Category:Sources English]]

Jan at 10:10, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T10:10:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 8 August 2025
Line 478:		Line 478:

	=== Manuscript existed before 1600 ===		=== Manuscript existed before 1600 ===
			This short essay was first published in the ''Friesche Courant'' (5-10-1876) and was added to the second edition of Ottema's OL translation (1876).
			'''The Manuscript of the Oera Linda-book existed long before 1600 CE.'''

			The pagination of the manuscript has been added to it in a later age. The oldest manuscripts were unpaged, and even the oldest products of the printing press (incunabula), e.g. the first edition of the Old Frisan Landlaws (Jus Municipale Frisonum), so-called Anjumer edition, 1466, has only an indication of the order of the printing sheets (signature) by means of letters, but no page numbers.

			In the Latin edition of Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia, by Bilibaldus Pirckheymerus, in Strasbourg 1525, folio, there is still no pageature;

			not even in the Edition of Ausonii Opera in Bordeaux 1591, quarto.

			The numbers and pagination also do not correspond to the forms used in the manuscript itself and depicted on the second image. They have, however, the form that was used in writing before the end of the 16th century. But in their composition they show a phenomenon that is strange to us, namely that the hundreds and tens are separated by the word ''and'' or a hyphen. Just as one says speaking: ''one hundred and one'', that is also written here. 100 and 1, 100-2, 100-3, etc. to 100-99; followed by 200, 200 and 1, 200-2, 200-3, etc. up to 200 and 10 (being the last page).

			That way of writing numbers is also encountered here and there in the manuscript, e.g.

			* 100 and 1 years;
			* in the year 1000 and 5;
			* 1600 and 2 years;
			* since 100 and 8 years.

			This particularity gives us an indication of the time when that pagination was done. For we find that notation in the Cronijck van Hollant, etc. until Delft, 1591 (Divisie kronijk), e.g.: When the world existed iiiMiiC and Lxxv years; before the birth of Christ MCC and xxiii years.

			In the year of our Lord vC and Lxxxix.

			In the year viiC and Lxxii. (700 and 72).

			Anno viiiC and xxvii. (800 and 27). etc.

			—

			The Cronyke van Vrieslant, by Ockam Scharlensem, etc. (Andreas Cornelius Stavriensis) from Leeuwarden, 1597, folio, consequently writes:

			Anno 300.96. The year was 300.93. Anno 1000 and 15, etc.

			—

			In later books you will no longer find this comprehensive way of recording numbers. But it clear that it was still known and in use by the end of the 16th century.

			One can safely conclude from this that the pagination of the manuscript also dates from the late 16th century.

			In other words, ''the manuscript already existed before the year 1600''.

			But from that pagination we learn more peculiarities about the manuscript.

			The last page is not marked 200-10, in the same way as the previous one; but in full 200 and 10. This proves that the man who paged the pages had finished his task here, and that this page was the last of what at the time remained of the manuscript, meaning that the end of the manuscript had already been lost before that time.

			This could not have happened if the manuscript had not fallen out of the cover ''a long time earlier'' by the wear and tear of the threads and had been lying there in loose sections and sheets.

			The concern to prevent these loose sheets from becoming disordered has certainly caused the former owner to provide them with a pagination.

			This runs regularly to p. 168, then continues, p. 189 to 192, and finally from p. 195 to 210. What is lacking in between to me seems to have been lost in later times, so that the seven first quarters are now complete, of the eighth only the last two sheets p. 189—92, and the eight middle pages of the ninth section p. 125—210.

			—

			The main conclusion that follows is that the manuscript, as long as it was stuck in its cover, was still unpaged, and that Hidde Oera Linda did not number the pages. He did not have to do that either, because sewing the booklets into one another himself, he knew how the sections followed one another.

			If he had given the manuscript to a binder to sew it in, he would have had to provide the sections with a sequential letter or other mark. But he did not do this either, and this again confirms my assumption already made elsewhere (Preface p. XII), that Hidde Oera Linda has hand-sewn the manuscript in a cover. <small>[Note Ott: the sheets could already have been sewn together before Hidde started writing the pages.]</small>

	==1877==		==1877==

Jan at 10:04, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T10:04:44Z

Show changes

Jan: save

2025-08-08T09:36:56Z

save

Show changes

Jan at 09:15, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T09:15:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 8 August 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	*1871 '''Reply to Van den Bergh''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020; original: [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|'''JJK 17''' ''Adela's boek'']]]</small>		*1871 '''Reply to Van den Bergh''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020; original: [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|'''JJK 17''' ''Adela's boek'']]]</small>
	*1873 '''Germanic peoples''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020; original: [[1878 Ottema A en O\|'''JJK 36a''' ''Germanen'']]]</small>		*1873 '''Germanic peoples''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020; original: [[1878 Ottema A en O\|'''JJK 36a''' ''Germanen'']]]</small>
	*1874 Royal ~~Acad~~. []		*1874 '''The Royal Academy''' and '''Open Letter by L.F. Over de Linden''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1874 Ottema Kon. Akad.\|'''JJK 51''' ''De Koninklijke Akademie en het Oera Linda Bok'']]]</small>
	*1876 Deventer Crt.		*1876 '''Deventer Courant''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1876 Ottema Dev. Crt.\|'''JJK 89''' ''De Deventer courant en het Oera Linda Bok'']]]</small>
	*1876 MS existed before 1600		*1876 '''Manuscript existed before 1600''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1876 Ottema Thet OLB\|'''JJK 129''' ''Het handschrift van Thet Oera Linda Bok heeft al langen tijd vóór het jaar 1600 bestaan'']]]</small>
	*1877 ~~Punjab Colony~~		*1877 '''Reply to ''Who wrote ...?''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O\|'''JJK 162''' ''(Antwoord op) Wie heeft het O.L.B. geschreven?'']]]</small>
	*1877 Reply to ''~~Who wrote~~ ...?''		*1877 '''Reply to ''The Punjab Colony...''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O\|'''JJK 185''' ''Bespr. van: De Pandschâb Kolonie van het Oera Linda Bok, door J.F. Berk'']]]</small>

	Also see separate pages:		Also see separate pages:
Line 113:		Line 113:

	==1874==		==1874==
	Royal Ac.
			=== The Royal Academy ===

			=== Open Letter by L.F. Over de Linden ===

	==1876==		==1876==
	~~Dev.Crt.~~

	MS existed		=== Deventer Courant ===

			=== Manuscript existed before 1600 ===

	==1877==		==1877==
	~~Pandschap~~

	~~reply Wie heeft~~?		=== Reply to ''Who wrote ...?'' ===

			=== Reply to The Punjab Colony... ===
	[[Category:Sources English]]		[[Category:Sources English]]

Jan at 08:59, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T08:59:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 8 August 2025
Line 76:		Line 76:

	Leeuwarden, October 11, 1871. Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].		Leeuwarden, October 11, 1871. Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].

			— — —

	Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|his report to the Friesch Genootschap]], p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?; <small>quotes from [[wikipedia:The_Barber_of_Seville_(play)\|''Le Barbier de Seville'' (1773)]] by Beaumarchais.</small>]		Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|his report to the Friesch Genootschap]], p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?; <small>quotes from [[wikipedia:The_Barber_of_Seville_(play)\|''Le Barbier de Seville'' (1773)]] by Beaumarchais.</small>]

Jan at 08:59, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T08:59:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 8 August 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:

	Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].		Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].

	Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|his report to the Friesch Genootschap]], p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?; <small>quotes from [[wikipedia:The_Barber_of_Seville_(play)\|''Le Barbier de Seville'' (1773)]] by Beaumarchais.</small>]

	~~Nederlandsche Spectator editor~~

	=== Reply to Van den Bergh: ''Adela's Book.'' ===		=== Reply to Van den Bergh: ''Adela's Book.'' ===
	This reply to an article by mr. [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurens_Philippe_Charles_van_den_Bergh L.Ph.C. Van den Bergh] <small>[''Het onlangs ontdekte friesche handschrift''; in ''NL Spectator''; 7-10-1871 p.311]</small> appeared in the ''Nederlandsche Spectator'' of 14-10-1871 (p.322-323), titled ''[[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|Adela's Boek]]''.		This reply to an article by mr. [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurens_Philippe_Charles_van_den_Bergh L.Ph.C. Van den Bergh] <small>[''Het onlangs ontdekte friesche handschrift''; in ''NL Spectator''; 7-10-1871 p.311]</small> appeared in the ''Nederlandsche Spectator'' of 14-10-1871 (p.322-323), titled ''[[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|Adela's Boek]]''.
Line 81:		Line 76:

	Leeuwarden, October 11, 1871. Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].		Leeuwarden, October 11, 1871. Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].

			Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|his report to the Friesch Genootschap]], p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?; <small>quotes from [[wikipedia:The_Barber_of_Seville_(play)\|''Le Barbier de Seville'' (1773)]] by Beaumarchais.</small>]

			Nederlandsche Spectator editor

	==1873==		==1873==

Jan at 08:58, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T08:58:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 8 August 2025
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].		Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].

	Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in his report to the Friesch Genootschap, p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?]		Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in [[1871 Ottema voorwerk\|his report to the Friesch Genootschap]], p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?; <small>quotes from [[wikipedia:The_Barber_of_Seville_(play)\|''Le Barbier de Seville'' (1773)]] by Beaumarchais.</small>]

	Nederlandsche Spectator editor		Nederlandsche Spectator editor

Jan at 08:56, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T08:56:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:56, 8 August 2025
Line 63:		Line 63:

	Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].		Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].

			Against this testimony from Dr. Ottema, we contrast the testimony of the same Dr. Ottema, in his report to the Friesch Genootschap, p. 238:<blockquote>The other, Neptune, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Frisian Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, near Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, called familiarly by his followers Neef [cousin or kinsman] Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and would have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Frisia in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and Baltic amber [...]</blockquote>''Qui diable est ici la dupe?'' [Who the hell is the fool here?] Maybe you should add what follows: ''ils sont tous dans le secret?'' [are they all in the secret?]

			Nederlandsche Spectator editor

	=== Reply to Van den Bergh: ''Adela's Book.'' ===		=== Reply to Van den Bergh: ''Adela's Book.'' ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:06, 11 May 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	*1877 (Sept.) '''Reply to ''The Punjab Colony of the Oera Linda Book''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O\|'''JJK 185''' ''Bespr. van: De Pandschâb Kolonie van het Oera Linda Bok, door J.F. Berk'']]]</small>		*1877 (Sept.) '''Reply to ''The Punjab Colony of the Oera Linda Book''''' <small>[transl. Ott 2020;original: [[1878 Ottema A en O\|'''JJK 185''' ''Bespr. van: De Pandschâb Kolonie van het Oera Linda Bok, door J.F. Berk'']]]</small>

	Also see ~~separate pages~~:		Also see:
	*~~[[1872 Introduction Ottema\|~~Introduction Ottema 1872/1876]] Thet Oera Linda Bok		*Introduction Ottema 1872/1876 Thet Oera Linda Bok [use translation Sandbach 1876 pp. <small>V-XX</small>]
	*[[1876 Foreword Ottema 2nd edition\|Foreword to 1876 edition]] of Thet Oera Linda Bok		*[[1876 Foreword Ottema 2nd edition\|Foreword to 1876 edition]] of Thet Oera Linda Bok (transl. Raubenheimer)
	*[[1878 Ottema Historical N and C\|1878 Historical notes and clarifications]] to Thet Oera Linda Bok		*[[1878 Ottema Historical N and C\|1878 Historical notes and clarifications]] to Thet Oera Linda Bok

Line 22:		Line 22:
	“Many fragments”, he writes, “can word by word be translated into Dutch or Frisian, without having to adapt syntax, in order to obtain a decent style.” He could have said this of the whole book for the simple reason that the different writers express themselves in the normal spoken language, which is so natural that one can hardly say or write the same things differently. Between this narrative style, and the barren style of laws, contracts, and wills, in which everything exists that we had until now in the O. Frisian language, no comparison is valid. But in the very same way a nowaday Greek will be able to convey the language of Herodotus in his present speech, without changing the conjugation or syntax, although twenty-three centuries have passed between them.		“Many fragments”, he writes, “can word by word be translated into Dutch or Frisian, without having to adapt syntax, in order to obtain a decent style.” He could have said this of the whole book for the simple reason that the different writers express themselves in the normal spoken language, which is so natural that one can hardly say or write the same things differently. Between this narrative style, and the barren style of laws, contracts, and wills, in which everything exists that we had until now in the O. Frisian language, no comparison is valid. But in the very same way a nowaday Greek will be able to convey the language of Herodotus in his present speech, without changing the conjugation or syntax, although twenty-three centuries have passed between them.

	It is likewise with some words and expressions, that Mr C. criticizes. Those words and expressions or sayings still exist and are still in use; but that does not prove that they did not exist and were used many centuries ago. It is impossible to indicate the time of origin of any word, except names of things, which themselves are of later time and origin. The words and expressions that make up a language are as old as the language itself. If p. 8 states: ~~"tha~~ thene Magy thàt anda nôs kryg," one will not claim there once was a time people did not have noses or did not sense with them, etc.;		It is likewise with some words and expressions, that Mr C. criticizes. Those words and expressions or sayings still exist and are still in use; but that does not prove that they did not exist and were used many centuries ago. It is impossible to indicate the time of origin of any word, except names of things, which themselves are of later time and origin. The words and expressions that make up a language are as old as the language itself. If p. 8 states: “tha thene Magy thàt anda nôs kryg,” one will not claim there once was a time people did not have noses or did not sense with them, etc.;

	p. 16 and elsewhere: <u>falikant ut kuma.</u> This word ''falikant'' is also found in the oldest known Frisian and Dutch texts, as noun or as adjective, comparable to the adjective ''mislikande'' (deformed, shapeless, miscreated), which is also found abbreviated as ''mislik''. Just as ''mislikande'' is a compound of ''mis'' and ''likande'', ''falikant'' will have been composed of ''fa'' and ''likande''; ''fa'' (Danish ''faa'') is found in the manuscript p. 189 as ''fê'': <u>men jvd wil ik jo vppen lek wysa thàt fê bêtre sy</u>;		p. 16 and elsewhere: <u>falikant ut kuma.</u> This word ''falikant'' is also found in the oldest known Frisian and Dutch texts, as noun or as adjective, comparable to the adjective ''mislikande'' (deformed, shapeless, miscreated), which is also found abbreviated as ''mislik''. Just as ''mislikande'' is a compound of ''mis'' and ''likande'', ''falikant'' will have been composed of ''fa'' and ''likande''; ''fa'' (Danish ''faa'') is found in the manuscript p. 189 as ''fê'': <u>men jvd wil ik jo vppen lek wysa thàt fê bêtre sy</u>;

	p.149 <u>Net krekt lik</u>. ''Net'' does not mean ''not'' here, which in the manuscript is always ''naut'', next to ''nawet'' for ''nothing''. But ~~"net lik"~~ and ~~"krekt lik"~~ both mean ~~"the~~ same ~~as"~~ or ~~"equal to"~~, and ~~"net~~ krekt ~~lik"~~ is an expression enhanced by doubling.		p.149 <u>Net krekt lik</u>. ''Net'' does not mean ''not'' here, which in the manuscript is always ''naut'', next to ''nawet'' for ''nothing''. But “net lik” and “krekt lik” both mean “the same as” or “equal to”, and “net krekt lik” is an expression enhanced by doubling.

	In other comments, Mr C. forgets that the manuscript is not written in the same dialect as the Old Frisian laws; these show the language between the Vlie and the Lauwers; the manuscript the language between Vlie and Kennemerland. Thence comes the use of ''néi'' as opposed to ''to''; and ''lik as'' as opposed to ''lik sa''. Thence also that the manuscript contains words that are nowhere found outside North-Holland, e.g. ''hêmisdêgum, heemsdagen'', for ''recently'': ''nol'' meaning a small ''round'' terp (artificial dwelling mound). This ''nol'' is related to ''nul'' (zero), which name is derived from the ''round'' shape of the number. The word ''nul'' therefore is not derived from Latin ''nullus''.		In other comments, Mr C. forgets that the manuscript is not written in the same dialect as the Old Frisian laws; these show the language between the Vlie and the Lauwers; the manuscript the language between Vlie and Kennemerland. Thence comes the use of ''néi'' as opposed to ''to''; and ''lik as'' as opposed to ''lik sa''. Thence also that the manuscript contains words that are nowhere found outside North-Holland, e.g. ''hêmisdêgum, heemsdagen'', for ''recently'': ''nol'' meaning a small ''round'' terp (artificial dwelling mound). This ''nol'' is related to ''nul'' (zero), which name is derived from the ''round'' shape of the number. The word ''nul'' therefore is not derived from Latin ''nullus''.
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Moreover, the entire book, written before the arrival of the Romans in our country, does not indicate any traces of familiarity with the Latin language. Latin does, however, contain many words of Central European origin, which therefore have similarities with words in Germanic languages, such as ''schola'' and ''skole'', ''altare'' and ''altàr'', ''tunica'' and ''tohnekke'' and others — ''to-hnekka'' is a woman's dress that closes around the neck and reaches ''to the neck'' — but appearances are also often deceptive here;		Moreover, the entire book, written before the arrival of the Romans in our country, does not indicate any traces of familiarity with the Latin language. Latin does, however, contain many words of Central European origin, which therefore have similarities with words in Germanic languages, such as ''schola'' and ''skole'', ''altare'' and ''altàr'', ''tunica'' and ''tohnekke'' and others — ''to-hnekka'' is a woman's dress that closes around the neck and reaches ''to the neck'' — but appearances are also often deceptive here;

	e.g. ''restja'' and the ''rest'' have no relation to ''restare''. This ''restja'' is to rest, to reside; the stock 'resting' in the warehouse is still there; and ~~"hwat~~ thêr jeta rest fon vs alde sêdum," means what is left of our old manners. Therefore, the noun also means a quantity still present.		e.g. ''restja'' and the ''rest'' have no relation to ''restare''. This ''restja'' is to rest, to reside; the stock 'resting' in the warehouse is still there; and “hwat thêr jeta rest fon vs alde sêdum,” means what is left of our old manners. Therefore, the noun also means a quantity still present.

	Neither is ''just'' related to justus, just. The adverb ''just'' actually means at the time, ~~"just~~ wêre 't jolfêrste,~~" "at~~ the time it was Yule-feast." In its sense, ''just'' is related to ''jud'' indicating a present tense.		Neither is ''just'' related to justus, just. The adverb ''just'' actually means at the time, “just wêre 't jolfêrste,” “at the time it was Yule-feast.” In its sense, ''just'' is related to ''jud'' indicating a present tense.

	I have to make it clear to Mr C. that the adjective ''justus'' is not a past participle is of the verb ''jugere'', which is already impossible because of its form, but moreover is inconsistent with the meaning.		I have to make it clear to Mr C. that the adjective ''justus'' is not a past participle is of the verb ''jugere'', which is already impossible because of its form, but moreover is inconsistent with the meaning.
Line 91:		Line 91:

	After all that was written about this question, prof. Adolf Holtzmann ([https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6903712M/Kelten_und_Germanen. Kelten und Germanen], Stuttgart 1855) discusses Strabo's answer. So even after 18 centuries, it is still being researched.		After all that was written about this question, prof. Adolf Holtzmann ([https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6903712M/Kelten_und_Germanen. Kelten und Germanen], Stuttgart 1855) discusses Strabo's answer. So even after 18 centuries, it is still being researched.
	Leopold Contzen ([https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10432450?page=1 die Wanderungen der Kelten], Leipzig 1861) however, qualifies this as "a far-fetched hypothesis!"		Leopold Contzen ([https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10432450?page=1 die Wanderungen der Kelten], Leipzig 1861) however, qualifies this as “a far-fetched hypothesis!”

	<blockquote>For if, in Roman understanding, ''Germani'' meant the adjective ''genuine'', it could not be used without noun, and this consequence demanded, that besides the ''true'' Celts, they also distinguished ''untrue'' Celts. However, ''Celtae adulterini'' are nowhere mentioned. Strabo assumed the word was Latin and translated it accordingly, but this does not prove an origin. On the contrary, Caesar named the strangers as he heard the Gauls name them. The assumption is inadmissible to begin with, that Ariovist would have lived in Gaul with his people for 14 years, without having a name of their own.</blockquote>So in the name of Germani, Contzen acknowledges the name of a people, but does not further explain the origin of that people and that name.		<blockquote>For if, in Roman understanding, ''Germani'' meant the adjective ''genuine'', it could not be used without noun, and this consequence demanded, that besides the ''true'' Celts, they also distinguished ''untrue'' Celts. However, ''Celtae adulterini'' are nowhere mentioned. Strabo assumed the word was Latin and translated it accordingly, but this does not prove an origin. On the contrary, Caesar named the strangers as he heard the Gauls name them. The assumption is inadmissible to begin with, that Ariovist would have lived in Gaul with his people for 14 years, without having a name of their own.</blockquote>So in the name of Germani, Contzen acknowledges the name of a people, but does not further explain the origin of that people and that name.
Line 205:		Line 205:
	From all that my grandfather had possessed before, only a large dome and a garden had remained. He continued to live in that dome. My aunt Aafje married; she and her husband came to live with grandfather or he with them. When grandfather died, my father and his other sister allowed Aafje to keep the dome and garden, and so my grandfather's modest possessions fell into the hands of my aunt, whose husband was H. Reuvers.		From all that my grandfather had possessed before, only a large dome and a garden had remained. He continued to live in that dome. My aunt Aafje married; she and her husband came to live with grandfather or he with them. When grandfather died, my father and his other sister allowed Aafje to keep the dome and garden, and so my grandfather's modest possessions fell into the hands of my aunt, whose husband was H. Reuvers.

	When I had grown up, my aunt wanted to send the manuscript to me, but Reuvers, who imagined that it might contain a clue to some matter of value, would not allow it. In August 1848 I visited my mother and at the same time my aunt, who then gave me the manuscript, saying: "I have something for you from grandfather; your uncle never allowed me to give it to you. He is now dead and and Koops (Meijlhof, her second husband) knows nothing about it." She then handed it to me, saying: I believe it is Frisian.		When I had grown up, my aunt wanted to send the manuscript to me, but Reuvers, who imagined that it might contain a clue to some matter of value, would not allow it. In August 1848 I visited my mother and at the same time my aunt, who then gave me the manuscript, saying: “I have something for you from grandfather; your uncle never allowed me to give it to you. He is now dead and and Koops (Meijlhof, her second husband) knows nothing about it.” She then handed it to me, saying: I believe it is Frisian.

	As soon as I had the time, I bought a Frisian dictionary from Gijsbert Japicx, then a few others, but they did not help me.		As soon as I had the time, I bought a Frisian dictionary from Gijsbert Japicx, then a few others, but they did not help me.
Line 231:		Line 231:
	Dr. Ottema has edited the book as scrupulously as scholars edit the works of the ancient classics, and has prefixed too it a very learned introduction in the Dutch language. The original Friesic text is carefully printed, with a Dutch translation on the opposite page. This publication has created considerable excitement in the Dutch learned world, the Friesians upholding most resolutely the genuineness of the manuscript, and the Dutch deriding all notion of its authenticity.		Dr. Ottema has edited the book as scrupulously as scholars edit the works of the ancient classics, and has prefixed too it a very learned introduction in the Dutch language. The original Friesic text is carefully printed, with a Dutch translation on the opposite page. This publication has created considerable excitement in the Dutch learned world, the Friesians upholding most resolutely the genuineness of the manuscript, and the Dutch deriding all notion of its authenticity.

	However that may be, the Dutch scholars themselves admit whilst declaring the document a forgery, that it is a forgery at least several hundred years old, and here is the rub: if forgery at all, how is it that the MS reports a visit to the piledwellers in Switzerland about five centuries B.C., when, since ~~Herodotus"s~~ account of the pile-dwellings of the Paeonians, nothing more has been heard of pile-dwellers until 1853, when Dr. Keller first made known his discovery of the remains of such dwellings in the Lake of Zurich!!!</blockquote>Leeuwarden, May 1, 1874. Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].		However that may be, the Dutch scholars themselves admit whilst declaring the document a forgery, that it is a forgery at least several hundred years old, and here is the rub: if forgery at all, how is it that the MS reports a visit to the piledwellers in Switzerland about five centuries B.C., when, since Herodotus’ account of the pile-dwellings of the Paeonians, nothing more has been heard of pile-dwellers until 1853, when Dr. Keller first made known his discovery of the remains of such dwellings in the Lake of Zurich!!!</blockquote>Leeuwarden, May 1, 1874. Dr. [[Jan G. Ottema\|J.G. Ottema]].

	=== Open Letter by [[Leendert F. Over de Linden\|L.F. Over de Linden]] ===		=== Open Letter by [[Leendert F. Over de Linden\|L.F. Over de Linden]] ===
Line 390:		Line 390:
	It would be great if Frêthorik had accompanied this by a few examples. That would have been an important contribution to linguistics. Now we can only deduce from it that those Frisians who returned from Athens spoke Frisian, that is to say they used Frisian words, but had adopted the Greek construction to some extent.		It would be great if Frêthorik had accompanied this by a few examples. That would have been an important contribution to linguistics. Now we can only deduce from it that those Frisians who returned from Athens spoke Frisian, that is to say they used Frisian words, but had adopted the Greek construction to some extent.

	''For ald [old] they say ád, for salt sád'' etc. This is confirmed by Halbertsma, Frisian yearbook 1834, p. 42: ~~"The~~ Hindelopers sweeten such words by turning the jolting vocal into a lingering and the sharp closing consonant into a soft, saying aald, kaald, shortened to aad and kaad, or the even more vulgar óad en kóad. "		''For ald [old] they say ád, for salt sád'' etc. This is confirmed by Halbertsma, Frisian yearbook 1834, p. 42: “The Hindelopers sweeten such words by turning the jolting vocal into a lingering and the sharp closing consonant into a soft, saying aald, kaald, shortened to aad and kaad, or the even more vulgar óad en kóad. ”

	As another characteristic of these Krêkalandar, Frêthorik provides: ''They also use foreign and abbreviated names that have no clear meaning''.		As another characteristic of these Krêkalandar, Frêthorik provides: ''They also use foreign and abbreviated names that have no clear meaning''.