Talk:Old Frisian

Untitled

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)

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)

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)

Contradiction with Frisians.

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.
—Ruakh_TALK 14:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Poor Sentence

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)

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)

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)

Some Questions

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)