About this board

    Not editable

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    When ET stands for 'it' or 'the', it can be considered a separate word, so it does not have to be connected to the previous word. Same for when ER means 'he' or 'there'. On this page there is one ER which means 'her'. This can remain connected to the previous word as it is an abreviation.
    Also, adding spaces to separate whole words will no longer be considered a correction.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    I disagree. My arguments for connecting IT/ET and ER to previous words with a dot are:

    • IT/ET and T are contractions of THIT/THET, which is the proper article. Contractions are connected to previous words, so if the Oera Linda scribe wrote IT/ET or T in a way that made it look like a standalone word, that can be blamed on lack of regularisation or just sloppiness.
    • In the manuscript, ER is often written as an enclitical pronoun, that is, writing independent words as if they were a suffix to the previous word, since that better reflects how a string of words were pronounced together, in the same way compound words are often connected with a dot because they are pronounced together. (I know ER is also often written independently, but I think that is again due to lack of regularisation.)
    • In Old Frisian, writing ET, T and ER as enclitics was common, and the writing in the OLB strongly suggests enclitics was a feature of Fryas too. Old Frisian grammars list -it/-et and -er as common enclitics (quote from An Introduction to Old Frisian by Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr., 2009). Modern editions of Old Frisian texts seem to use apostrophe to indicate enclitics to help the reader. In the OLB, it would be a dot.

    If I had to argue for writing IT/ET and ER as separate words, it would be that IT/ET would correspond to e.g. English it, which is written independently, and e.g. German er, which is written independently. Furthermore, Old High German had her, which was an alternative of er. However, I think writing and pronouncing it and er as independent words is a later development when cliticisation (using enclitics) stopped being a feature in the descendant languages. Thus, in my estimation, they began as enclitics, but later became independent words because English, German etc. no longer use enclitics; they use contractions at best (it's, they're, fürs, zur, etc.), although that is different.

    You decide of course, but I wanted to voice my opinion. I will refrain from making any edits like .ET (“it”) and .ER (“he”) if you think it is better to write them separately.

    I agree that “space corrections” are not necessary to note.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    ET is very common (228x), IT (6x) should probably become ET. Since ET is so much like Dutch 'het' and German 'es' it feels normal to consider them as separate words. I think it becomes easier to read and understand if there are less dot-connected words.
    ER (at least 269x) is also very common, but not all mean 'he' (German 'er') or 'there' (Dutch 'er'). When short for 'her', I'm not sure yet how to deal with it.
    In general, I will think more about this issue and may change my mind eventually.
    We'll have to add a chapter about pronunciation.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    My main point was that Fryas and Old Frisian use the peculiar feature of enclitics, whereas we do not in our modern languages, so one should be careful not to equate an independent word in our modern languages (it, het, es, er, etc.) with an enclitic in their times. Consider also that it does not make sense to have two different words for “he” (as an example) unless something distinguishes them: so HI would be independent, .ER would be enclitical. Thus words like .ER, .ET, .RA, etc. (not always consistent) were shortcuts used for economy of speech, in my view. There is a lot of overlap between enclitics and contractions, but they are not always the same.

    I agree that fewer dots may make the text easier to read, but I worry that it would be less historically accurate, if my analysis is correct.

    Regarding pronunciation, a future grammar book of Fryas should explain prounciation in the phonology chapter. Until such a book is made, the wiki could link to your old blog posts about pronunciation perhaps? I can also clean up my pronunciation notes I wrote earlier this year in a PDF file, although it is a draft, but perhaps it would help someone even so?

    I predict in the future there will be two camps: academics who use reconstructed historical pronunciation, and West Frisians who use modern West Frisian pronunciation. That is the situation with regards to Old Norse: academics use reconstructed pronunciation, and Icelanders swear by modern Icelandic pronunciation.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    You are mostly right about the enclitics. I remember you explained earlier, but this time it falls on more fertile soil. Such things have been a blind spot in my education.

    It would be good to have a separate punctuation mark for combining words with other words or enclitics, that looks different from a full stop and is also typed differently, for example with "`". In that case it would be much easier for me to use it much more often and it would be less confusing: SÉID`ER. I would even use the ` as it is, think I can easliy get used to it. But I don't think I would be bothered by noting all the changes/corrections as it would be way too many (for my taste).

    Even better than a book or text about pronunciation would be audiovisuals.

    What do you mean with 'West Frisians'? I know some people (and Wikipedia) use that term for people from the Dutch province of Friesland, as if Westfrisians (in province North Holland) don't exist.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Or, instead of "`" rather "_", which would correspond with some cases in the MS, e.g. on page [00a]: in MOT_I and ÛT_ER, LJÛ_WERT, etc., but then I would prefer it to be ca. half as wide.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Is it possible to make _ and ` behave as the separating dots do know; that is, appear on the next line when a word is split at the end of a line? In such case, we can even differentiate between marks connecting whole words (compounds) and marks connecting words 'leaning on' another.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    I see now that when the connecting dot is replaced by another character, it still behaves like a 'fryas hyphen', as long as the hidden character is preserved. I will await your opinion before I restore (and add more of) the connectors of enclitics.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    Sorry for the wait. I thought about it and looked at the manuscript pages more thoroughly and how they were inked. I probably looked too quickly before and never gave it much consideration, but the pattern I can see is:

    • Dots are used as we use modern commas, full stops and colons. Their marking of “commas” is not always consistent, and in the letters of instruction, the scribe writes commas the way we see them today. A lot more could be said about commas, which is a complete science in itself, but I had to stop myself.
      • Comma ending a clause:
      • Comma listing items:
      • Dot ending a sentence: (no examples necessary, it is self-evident)
      • Colon introducing a quote or introducing an explanation or narrative:
        • [034] MIN_ERVA ANDERE. (followed by what Minerva said)
        • [034] THA PRESTERA. (followed by what the priests said)
        • [072] THIT IS OVER THA GÉRT_MANNA. (followed by the narrative of the Geartmen)
        • [095/20] THÉRE BURCHFÁM_S LOV. (followed by the ode to the burg maiden)
    • Lines are used to connect compounds, affixes and enclitics. To be clear, an enclitic means in the case of Fryas and Old Frisian an unstressed short form of a third person pronoun (_ER, _NE, _RA, _I etc.), article (_ET, _EN) and a few other words like _ER “then” or “there.” To give an example of enclitics in another language: in Latin, -que is a conjunction used as an enclitic, e.g. populusque “and the people.”
      • Compounds (noun + noun): BURCH_FÁM, GRÉVET_MANNA, NACHT_ULE, WÉPEN_HROP
      • Affixes (prefixes and suffixes):
        • WR_ALDA (WR_ is the over- prefix)
        • É_LIKA (_LIKA is the -like suffix)
        • FRYA_HIS (_HIS is an old noun suffix marking the genitive case)
        • FOLK_S (_S is a more prevalent variant)
      • Enclitics:
        • [001] THRITICH JÉR ÀFTERE DÉI ... STAND_ET_ER ÀRG VM TO. (stod det da in Danish, stand es da in German, stond het er in Dutch?)
        • [010] THÁ HROP HJU_RA ALLE A FLÍLÁND TO SÉMNE. (hun dem in Danish, sie sie in German, ze hen in Dutch?)
        • [030] SAHWERSA THÉR KVMTH EN VRLANDISK KAP_MAN ... SA WÀRTH_ER BISTONDA MÀRK_BÉTEN ... (bliver han in Danish, wird er in German, wordt hij in Dutch?)

    I may need to work on this analysis more; this is what I have at the moment. Let me know what you think. Feel free to expand on it if you think it makes sense. I can make the line (called “underscore” in typography) shorter and thicker in the font. If my analysis is correct, then the Fryas dot ( . ) evolved to current full stop ( . ), comma ( , ) and colon ( : ), and the Fryas line ( _ ) evolved to current hyphen ( - and = ) and apostrophe ( ’ ).

    I agree audiovisual explanation is the best way to teach pronunciation. IPA characters and mouth diagrams are of greater interest to linguists, myself included.

    Thank you for the note on West Friesland. I looked into it more. I was not aware that North Holland used to be part of the region of Friesland. By West Frisian I was indeed just referring to the speakers in current Friesland from my limited knowledge. I will sharpen my Frisian knowledge.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Danke dir, Pax. Ich werde die von mir entfernten Bindestriche zu gegebener Zeit wieder einfügen. Entschuldigung für meine überstürzte Handlung.

    There are no older topics