Demonyms

[phi]

In English, should we call all descendants of Frya, Finda and Lyda the "Fryas", "Findas" and "Lydas" respectively?

I think this may be a hold-over from Dutch. In English, usually if a category of person ends in "a", you simply add an "n" to make it a demonym. For example

• Georgia → Georgian
• Louisiana → Louisianan
• Africa → African

Following this convention, wouldn't a better demonym for the three lineages be "Fryan", "Findan" and "Lydan"?

It may also be useful sometimes to talk about these groups as a "folk" using a Kompositum. Would calling them "Fryafolk", "Findafolk" and "Lydafolk" be acceptable?

[Pax]

The Oera Linda book consistently says FRYA and FRYA.S. Technically, FRYA.S is the genitive of Frya, making it Frya's. It is short for FRYA.S BERN Frya's children or, less frequently, FRYA.S FOLK Frya's folk and FOLKRA FRYA.S peoples of Frya.

The genitive form FRYA.S also refers to the language. Technically, that would be short for *FRYA.S TÁL Frya's language, but this never occurs. It is similar to saying English to refer to the people or the language depending on context: the English live in England and I am learning English.

The book contains two instances of the adjective FRYASKE, which would literally be Fryash, like when one says English.

[077] EN FRYASKE MAN'GÉRTE ÀND EN ÉGIPTISKA PRESTER (a Fryash girl and an Egyptish priest)
[138] ÀND SIN FRYASKE FRJUND HÉTE HIM BÛDA (and his Fryash friend called him Buda)

As I have said in another thread, English as we know it today is a creole language (link). Fryas was originally spoken on the British Isles, but over time, it was mixed with Gaelic, Latin, Greek, Old Norse and French. As a result, spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary and even basic suffix conventions are chaotic. One says Egyptian, not Egyptish, but one says Swedish, not Swedian. One can say English and Anglican, but they have different meanings.

Fryan is a Latinate demonym, since Latin uses the suffix -ānus to create demonyms. When importing Latin words into English, the -us ending is often cut off. For example: Rōma → Rōmānus → Roman. So: Frya → Fryānus → Fryan. Some people have used the form Freyan due to the correspondence between Frya and the Norse goddess Freya.

Frya and Fryas correspond to the original text, minus the apostrophe, which is OK because FRYA.S evidently evolved to become an independent word, just as the word English is used independently. For example:

[00b] ALLES HWAT FON VS FRYA.S TREFTH (everything that concerns us Fryas)
[003] WÉRON THA ÉTHLA TO HÀRDE FRYA.S (were the nobles still loyal Fryas)
[041] EN STOLTE FRYA.S (a proud Frya)
[055] SIN FRYA HALS (his Frya neck)
[086] EN ÀFTE FRYA.S (a true Frya)
[146] KORNÉLJA IS WAN.FRYAS (Kornelia is bad Fryas)

The convention used by Ott, Stafford and myself (at least) is:

• As proper noun: Fryas, e.g.: Fryas is spoken in Fryasland
• As common noun: Frya in singular, Fryas in plural, e.g.: a Frya went to the market, the Fryas sail everywhere
• As adjective: Frya, e.g.: a Frya child, his proud Frya morals
• As adverb: Fryas, e.g.: she speaks Fryas

Technically, the Fryas would say FRYA.S for a noun in singular, but English forms plurals by adding -s, so it would sound odd to say a Fryas, just as it would sound odd to say a Germans or an apples.

A similar convention would hold true for Lyda and Finda, but the Oera Linda book almost exclusively says LYDA.S FOLK, FOLK FON LYDA, FINDA.S FOLK, FINDA.S BLOD and so on. On page 102 there is THA ÀRGA FINDAS the loathsome Findas, but generally, Lyda and Finda are treated as proper nouns, whereas the word Frya gets special treatment.

Keep in mind that this is the convention in English; I am less sure about other languages. For example, in Scandinavian languages, it makes more sense to write Freja, not Frya, because the letter y has a completely different sound. In German, Freia makes more sense, because FRYA comes from FRY. The name FRYA is meaningful and means free (German frei), so the name Freia makes the connection to frei more obvious.

Concerning Fryafolk etc.: it sounds strange. You would raise an eyebrow if I said Englishfolk or Americafolk, for example.

Writing this post made me realise some things, so I am glad I took the time to write it.

EDIT: Added the distinction between proper and common noun in the convention.

[ott]

Very well said, Pax. Thank you.

I used to write 'Fryan' myself on my weblog (Saved from the Flood) and on an old forumthread (Unexplained Mysteries), but later grew a dislike for it. For the title of my last (YT) video I used 'Fryanized' (ironically, if that's the right term), for lack of anything better (suggestions anyone?).

Still, thanks for the suggestion, Phi. If more people here prefer 'Fryan', I'd be willing to reconsider it.

[phi]

Thanks Pax for the well researched and thought-out explanation. It's very interesting learning about the nuances of the language.

From your citations, it definitely seems like FRYA.S, FRYAS and FRYA are used as demonyms in the original text. Unless it is a transcription error, the way that "FRYAS" evolved to become used a demonym from "FRYA.S" is essentially an idiom of the linguistic evolution over time.

As someone who's coming from the outside not heavily steeped in this text, the term "Fryas" seems like an imported idiom, not a transliteration to idiomatic English. As I understand it, based on what you've said, it's analogous to how we use the adjective "québécois" for someone from Quebec even though the "-ois" suffix is very unusual in English. It's also odd that "Fryas" and "Frya" are seemingly interchangeable; I can't think of any other examples in English where multiple demonyms are synonymous and acceptable. In the text, they seem to be referred to as "Frya's" the most, but Ott/Stafford seem to have translated that as "Frya" because it would be very unusual English to use the possessive like that.

I don't know that there's an absolutely correct answer to how FRYA.S/FRYAS/FRYA must be transliterated to English. Newcomers to the text will have to learn the idioms about why "Fryas" and "Frya" refer to the people the way that they do. When I see the word "Frya", I think of the woman herself; to me, saying "Are you a true Frya?" sounds like Frya's folk consider themselves avatars or instantiations of Frya herself or something, even though the original text is more like "Are you a true Frya's [folk/child]?" ("BIST EN ÀFTE FRYA​.S.").

"Fryash" is interesting. It makes a bit more sense, even though it's not attested as much as the other forms. To the ear, it sounds a little unusual.

For the heck of it, I asked GPT-4 about this. Here's is what it said:

PROMPT
Let's say you were translating a text from an archaic proto-Germanic or proto-Frisian language into English. There is a group of people descended from a person named "Frya" and you have to create an English demonym for her descendants. What word would you choose?

RESPONSE
In English, demonyms are often formed by adding a suffix to the name of the place or ethnic group from which people originate. For descendants of a person named "Frya," one might look for a suffix that suits the transformation of a personal name into a demonym. Common suffixes include "-an," "-ian," "-ite," or "-er." Here are some options:

Fryan
Fryian
Fryite
Fryer (though this might be confusing as it's a common English word)

Among these, "Fryan" or "Fryian" would likely be the most typical formations for a demonym in English, echoing patterns seen in demonyms such as "Roman" from "Rome" or "Victorian" from "Victoria."

Of course, this is just an AI inference, so take it with a grain of salt.

The word "Fryanized" that Jan used is interesting because it shows how a more idiomatic English form could benefit from other English suffixes. For example, here are some random derivative neologisms that wouldn't work as well with "Fryas" (or "Frya" without an "n"):

• Fryanology
• Fryanification
• Fryanism
• Fryanhood
• Fryanly
• Fryanicity
• Un-Fryan

Ultimately, it's an editorial decision, and I'm not qualified to have any strong opinion either way. I'll use whatever y'all decide is official. I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind it.

[ott]

These seem good arguments to me. I will discuss the issue with Bruce.

[Escapeyourcage]

Great topic. Excellent summary by Pax and great input from phi as well. I’m writing this without being able to look back at your responses, but I agree with the argument that Fryan is a quasi-Latinization. In fact, if I were to choose that form, I would go for phi’s/ChatGPT’s “Fryian”.
The plural/possessive s question is also well summarized by Pax. I will admit that I am biased towards the Dutch relatedness of “Fryas”. And the reference to Québécois is brilliant as well!

As for Fryafolk/Fryasfolk, forgive me Pax for going archaic again, but I like it! Be that as it may, I believe we’ve used “Finda’s” (and Lyda’s) folk so far, and I see no reason for change -except maybe to eliminate the possessive s? Also, as Pax pointed out, it is fairly irrelevant as the source sticks to FRYA.S BERN etc.

My vote would be to maintain/make consistent the current solution Frya/Fryas. This is already on my list of editorial task following revision and it’s gratifying to see that others are putting thought into the question.

Also, I would use Fryascized!

[Pax]

Suggestions:

• Instead of I have studied Fryanology, say I have studied the Fryas.
• Instead of the children were Fryanised (or underwent Fryanification), say the children were made into true Fryas. Or: instead of Fryanised translation, say translation/translated into Fryas.
• Instead of they could not understand our Fryanism, say they could not understand our Frya beliefs.
• Fryanhood could just be Fryahood, without the -n-. E.g. she defended her Fryahood before the assembly.
• Fryanly. That sounds strange. Would you say Americanly? Italianly?
• Instead of Fryanicity, say Fryahood, since it means the same thing.
• Instead of unfryan, say unfrya. E.g. he behaved in an unfrya way.

In my view, this is only with the goal of keeping the word Frya pure from Latin deformation; it is impossible to speak English without using Latinate words, of course. Frya is a special word and the Fryas themselves would agree, in my estimation.

To the point about “Are you a true Frya?”, I do not think they saw themselves as manifestations of Frya; it was simply a demonym, easily interpreted as such from the context. It is the same as if one were to say, “Are you a true Frank?” while fully knowing that Frank was the first king of the Franks.

I have ignored whatever the robotic prompt says.

I also prefer the current convention as I have outlined it in my earlier post.

[ott]

instead of Fryanised translation, say translation/translated into Fryas.

I didn't really consider the subtitles to be a 'translation', as the Old Frisian texts were (i.m.o.) rather written in a variety (or bastardization) of the Fryas language. I've changed it into with Fryas subtitles.