Jump to content

Talk:Old Frisian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

In the article is mentioned "After Fryslân (now the Dutch province Friesland) lost its independence and became part of the Dutch Republic, Old Frisian lost its status as official language. The period 1550 - 1800 is designated Middle Frisian, when the language was rarely recorded in writing."

I always thougt that the historic Frisia or Fryslân was a much larger area than the present day Friesland or Fryslân. This is only the area between roughly Groningen en the IJsselmeer, the former Zuiderzee. I thought the original area where Old frision was spoken was the entire region between Alkmaar and Hamburg. Does anybody know how this area is defined precisely? Migdejong 08:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But the other parts of Frisia had lost their independence earlier (West Frisia to Holland, East Frisia to the Danish kings and German bishops). Frisia's incorporation into the Republic was the last chapter in a long history of decline. Anyway, Frisia's independence didn't mean much in the 15th and 16th century. Modern Frisia has little to do with the historical Frisia (as much as Brabant has to do with Lotharingen). It's just a territory that once was part of a larger country that has dissapeared. Chardon 09:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Short history of Frisia: First mention of Frisia is by the Romans. These Frisians disappeard in the 3th 4th century. The country was settled by Danes and Germans (same people who settled in England) who called themselves Frisians (probably intermarried the remaining original Frisians). They had kings that were qonquered by the Franks. After th Frankish kingdom imploded the Frisia from Zeeland to Denmrk emerged. However this was a very weak state (lot's of independent cities, few nobles etcetc) and when other countries got stronger (Holland for example) Frisia was not strong enough to defend it self. The country disappeared. Modern province Frisia is just a name and has little to do with the country Frisia. Chardon 10:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with Frisians.

[edit]

This article says,

Their ancient homes were originally North Germany and Denmark. The language of the earlier inhabitants of the region (the Frisians famously mentioned by Tacitus) is not attested.

But [[Frisians]] says,

Tacitus wrote a treatise about the Germanic peoples in 69, describing the habits of the Germanic people, as well as listing numerous tribes by name. [8] Of the many tribes he mentioned, the name 'Frisii' is the only one still in use to refer unequivocally to the same ethnic group. [9]

This should be sorted out.
—RuakhTALK 14:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well it has long been sorted out. In 1906 Peter Boeles first postulated that there is no direct link between the people Tacitus wrote about and the Frissians from the early Middle Ages. I can't find anything in English but if you can read Dutch try http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Nieuws/2000/03/03/Vp/cs.html Chardon (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the original work on which the above-mentioned rather tendentious newspaper article is based, you may come to an altogether different conclusion: DE LATE PREHISTORIE EN PROTOHISTORIE VAN HOLOCEEN NOORD-NEDERLAND (in Dutch). There is no wholesale depopulation of Friesland in the 4-5th c., but the cultural continuity, as seen in pottery and such, is disputed. That's something entirely different.--Joostik (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote a paragraph from that original work
In het laatste komt echter in de loop van de derde eeuw verandering: de Friese aardewerktraditie gaat geheel verloren en wordt vervangen door aardewerk van de Driesum-stijl. Een sterke achteruitgang in het aantal kustbewoners – volgens Taayke komt het tot een ‘homeopatische verdunning’ van de Friezen - loopt parallel met genoemde ontwikkeling.

So even in the article you link to the conclusion is drawn that there is no direct link between the Frisians in Tacitus and the Frisians of King Redbad. Unless ofcourse you think there is something in homeopathy. Chardon (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Driessum pottery seems to be the last fase of development in style in the North-netherlands region. It disappears and at various terps it seems that scientists/archeologist can only conclude that Pieter Boeles was right. There is a gap between approx 325 and 425 on the Frissian terps. The Driessum pottery is re-appearing in Vlaanderen village Zele at the time it disappears in the North. Some claim this is evidence that at least some of the Frisians went to the south and became part of the Franks. All of this are rather new findings and I wish new investigations in Vlaanderen depots would occur to search for overlooked Driessum pottery as only Zele is a bit too little to be evidence.. Lz89z1 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Sentence

[edit]

I've moved the following from the lead to here:

Whether the speakers of Frisian are the immediate descendants of the Frisians of Roman times or immigrants from North Germany and Denmark is a moot point.

This reads nothing like an encyclopedia article and more like a response to something someone else has said in conversation. If the point is moot, it shouldn't be mentioned. That said, if there's any verifiable information behind whether or not the speakers are Roman-age Frisians, immigrants or both, the sentence should be re-added. 60.241.179.28 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with style please edit the sentence. If you don't know anything about the subject please don't remove content. Always document your changes and don't ask others to do it for you. Chardon (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to doubt they are their descendants, and much to support they are. For those who read Dutch, see the talk page nl:wiki/Overleg:Frisii and Bazelmans. --Joostik (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Questions

[edit]

According to the phonological development section, there should be an affricate /ts/, but it is not present on the consonant IPA table. I would just make an edit, but I have neither the source used nor a different source.

Next is the masculine a-stem plural ending "-ar". I've seen this elsewhere as well, but I am uncertain of its validity in Old Frisian. Modern descendants tend to use an "-s" ending, which would be weird if the ancestral form is "-ar". Is this what's recorded in the Old Frisian corpus? Cynemund (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 02:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Brokmerbrief, a document written in OId Frisian
The Brokmerbrief, a document written in OId Frisian
  • ... that some legal documents in Old Frisian (example pictured) refer to the womb as a "fortress of the bones"?
  • Source: Bremmer, Jr, Rolf H. (2009). An Introduction to Old Frisian: History, Grammar, Reader, Glossary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-9004-5., pp. 130–133
  • ALT1: ... that the modern Insular North Frisian dialects are not descended from Old Frisian (example pictured), but the Mainland North Frisian dialects are? Source: Bremmer, Jr, Rolf H. (2009). An Introduction to Old Frisian: History, Grammar, Reader, Glossary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-9004-5., p. 6
  • ALT2: ... that every surviving document written in Old Frisian (example pictured) from east of the Lauwers is a legal document except one? Source: Bremmer, Jr, Rolf H. (2009). An Introduction to Old Frisian: History, Grammar, Reader, Glossary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-9004-5., p. 7
  • ALT3: ... that according to some scholars, Old Frisian (example pictured) should really be Middle Frisian and Middle Frisian should really be Early Modern Frisian? Source: de Haan, Germen J. (2010). Studies in West Frisian Grammar: Selected papers. Linguistics Aktuell. Vol. 161. Eric Hoekstra, Willem Visser, Goffe Jensma (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-8798-4. p 27
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Suicide in Lesotho
5x expanded by ThaesOfereode (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Great article! I think the hook ALT0 is interesting and is more fitting for general audience. The book used as a source for ALT0 is available at Google Books and searching the phrase shows that it indeed supports the hook. The sources used in the article are mostly books (which I don't have, unfortunately), but what I could spotcheck through Google Books supported the prose and didn't look like plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One thing that I would fix myself, but I am unsure if I'm missing something: it seems the sentence starting with "The first full manuscripts..." is missing a verb?

That said, though, there is one small thing about the image. It is in public domain. And while I wasn't sure if a page with text is "clear at 100px", it seems like that's fine. However, a hook with an image should include a so-called media marker, the phrase (pictured) or one of its variations. Something like (example pictured) after the bolded link maybe? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AstonishingTunesAdmirer: Thanks for the kind words! Thank you for catching that missing verb; these big rewrites can have little things like that overlooked so easily. I've added the (example pictured) element, as requested as well. I appreciate your taking on this big review! Let me know if anything else needs to be fixed prior to approval. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Old Frisian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 22:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tenpop421 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @ThaesOfereode: I'll give this a review. I should start within a week. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tenpop421! Looking forward to your comments! ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaesOfereode: This is a good piece of work, and meets the basic good article criteria. I'll be happy to pass after a few things are addressed (I've made a lot of suggestions, don't feel the need to follow all!). Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

[edit]

On this version, I used RNG to pick fns. 55 , 72, 31, 58, 17 to verify.

  • 55: Stiles 2018, p. 893. checkY
  • 72: Bremmer 2009, p. 61. checkY
  • 31: Stiles 2008, p. 176. Nitpick, but he doesn't argue this here, he just states it. I've changed this, but if there's somewhere he argues for this you can change it back.
  • That's fine. I used "argue" since I don't believe that's the prevailing view; it's the first time I've come across it. Stiles is a very reputable Germanicist, so it felt important to include in some way. No big deal either way. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 58: Bremmer 2009, pp. 114–115. checkY
  • 17: Buczek 2020, pp. 245, 270. checkY

Copyedits

[edit]
  • complex syntactic functions could be expressed through periphrastic constructions Do you express a function? Maybe "achieve" would be a better word.
  • as closer to each other than any other Germanic language > as closer to each other than to any other Germanic language (unless I've got the hypothesis wrong)
  • Estimations of a common ancestor of the Anglo-Frisian languages > Datings proposed for the common ancestor of the Anglo-Frisian languages
  • is no longer as widely accepted as it once was, however. > is no longer as widely accepted. (last clause is redundant)
  • comprised a fairly significant portion of the Germanic invasions of Britain > comprised a fairly significant portion of the peoples involved with the Germanic invasions of Britain
  • based on their respective position in relation > based on their position in relation
  • like Tacitus, as in his Germania, and Ptolemy, described as living from north of the estuary of the Rhine to around the Ems river > like Tacitus, as in his Germania, and Ptolemy; they describe them as living from north of the estuary of the Rhine to around the Ems river

Content

[edit]

You've done an admirable job making this technical article understandable. Some technical portions are unavoidable. However, we can probably aid comprehension in a couple places:

  • I'm not sure what linguistic phylogeny is. Could you include an in-text gloss?
  • onomastic data suggests > evidence from proper names suggests best to avoid the technical term "onomastics".
  • corpora best to gloss this word on its first usage
  • univerbation to avoid the reader having to click away, can you reword or give this an in-text gloss?
  • kennings in-text gloss would be helpful

Miscellaneous

  • In general, Old West Frisian manuscripts, dated to around 1450 to 1525, are more recent attestations compared to Old East Frisian ones, dated to between 1300 and 1450. I couldn't see what this sentence was intending to say until I looked at Bremmer 2009, p. 114. More accurate would be something like Our primary manuscript sources for Old West Frisian are of a later date (between 1450 to 1525) than those that we have for Old East Frisian (between 1300 and 1450)
  • language experienced an influx of Latin and Greek loans Looking at Bremmer, he says that it had an influx of Latin loans, some of which were themselves Greek loans (e.g. Frisian biskop < Latin episcopus < Greek epískopos), which is slightly different. Maybe omit "Greek" or explain in more words.
That's an elegant solution Tenpop421 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first full manuscripts are the First Brokmer Codex, dated to sometime between 1276 and 1300, and the First Rüstring Codex, dated to around 1300. These documents are known to be copies, but the originals are not known to have survived.[46] Following up the citation, these dates are the dates of the manuscripts themselves (so maybe "written" rather than "dated" would be clearer). Bremmer mentions that the when, where, and who of the texts themselves are not known. This might be a good fact to include (rather than that "the originals are not known to have survived", as medieval holographs are very rare).

This sentence doesn't work grammatically

[edit]

'However, analysis of the existing corpora involving charter documents shows that dependent sentences with direct objects show about 60% have a subject–verb–object construction.'

One of the verbs is superfluous. Also, isn't the term dependent clause? I would have amended this to 'about 60% of dependent sentences with direct objects have a subject–verb–object construction', but I am not quite sure that this is what is meant, partly because of the use of the word 'sentence' instead of 'clause'. A sentence could contain several clauses and several finite verbs. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I changed it to your version. That can be further improved, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Frisian&oldid=1284217066"