I disagree with this translation

[half life over]

"8. Do not attack the folk either of Lyda or of Finda. Wralda would help them, so that your violence would return upon your own heads."


From what I can tell from the manuscript, it doesn't allude to Finda and Lyda being under the protection of Wralda. Since the next text says the Fryas can attack them, I would like to discuss this phrase because it drastically changes the meaning and puts them at a disadvantage.

What is the reasoning behind translating it to simply mean a physical attack instead of meddling with them, such as messing around by giving them charity? This translation makes it detrimental for anyone following Frya's text. Essentially, it puts Finda's and Lyda's people in a hierarchy above the Fryas.

[ott]

Good question.

The original text is:

8. NE GRIP NA THÀT FOLK FON LYDA NER FON FINDA AN. WRALDA SKOLDE HELPA HJAM. SA THAT​.ET WELD THAT FON JO UTGVNG VPPA JVWA ÀJNA HÁVEDA SKOLDE WITHER KVMA.

The verb that was translated as 'attack' is the imperative GRIP ... AN. Its infinitive would have been ANGRIPA or ANGRIPPA.

This verb still exists and the first meaning is always 'attack':

• Swedish: angripa - to attack, tackle, criticize

• Norse: angripe - to attack, tackle, affect

• Danish: angribe - to attack, tackle

• Dutch: aangrijpen - to attack, grab

• German: angreifen - to attack, take violent action against someone

(The negative NE ... NA actually means never: Never attack ...)

WRALDA SKOLDE HELPA HJAM word-for-word means Wralda would/should help them, which iplies that he would also help Fryas folk, if they were attacked themselves. In other words: he helps to make even again what has been disturbed (see ch. 4e Eawa).

Indeed, it is clearly stated that the Fryas should always defend themselves, if needed:

On the same page (2f. Frya’s Tex, #9):

if they come to rob, then fall upon them like radiant fire

Chapter 4c (Minno's 'uselful precedents'):

If [a foreign trader] has [...] committed [...] fraud, it must be set right and the culprit banished from the lands

if we find ourselves at a foreign market [...] and it happens that the people do us harm or steal from us, we must assail them quickly ... our half-brothers may never treat us with disrespect or believe that we are cowardly

However, attacks in order to take their land or water were forbidden in Minno's first precedent:

If our neighbors have a piece of land or water that appears to be useful for us, it is fitting for us to ask them to sell it. If they refuse, we must let them keep it.

Thus, Do not attack ... or Never attack ... implies without without being provoked. We may add that in a footnote or between brackets.

[half life over]

The problem is grasp with the hand could definitely mean meddle with their states or culture too. Why did our ancestors use grasp instead of fire or sword? It seems to me physical attack is not the full extent of what is being said.

[ott]

'Attack' also fitts well with the phrase that follows:

so that your violence (WELD) would return upon your own heads

[half life over]

I agree, but why was it worded to imply more than a physical attack? If you examine line 9, it becomes evident that it explicitly calls for a physical attack: 'if they come to rob, then fall upon them like radiant fire.' Merely grasping in your hand isn't equivalent to physically attacking them; if it were, it would have been as apparent as in line 9.

By limiting it to a physical attack, you leave room for dogmatic interpretation, and future generations may repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors. We might end up becoming caretakers to Lydas and Findas due to misguided altruism, perpetually providing them with technology, food, and clothing. To me Grasping in your hand is also dealing with controlling them or dictating their way of life which should be reflected in the translation.

[half life over]

The issue lies in the statement that says, "grasp." Grasp means control, not just an attack. In my opinion, "meddle" is a more accurate translation. The problem arises when limiting it to only mean a physical attack. This allows too much wiggle room for magi to exploit. This is a powerful verse and by downgrading it to just mean physical attack you take the power away.

[half life over]

You're not addressing my point. The issue is that in other verses, when it mentions "attack," the language used is confined to just an attack. However, when it uses "grip," it implies both an attack and control. This nuance is overlooked when you only mention an attack. It needs to be reflected in the translation.

When you have someone in your grip it means manipulation, raising their children, teaching and providing schools for them, etc. Grip deals with all these things. While attack just mean doing physical damage and harm. Grip is much more than bring radiant fire against them.

[half life over]

I'm not a christian. It is clear. just one question If ANGRIPA just means physical attack then why isn't it used again in tex 9? Why is the physical attack put forth as by fire instead of having someone in your grip?

Calling me a christian is an insult and doesn't help prove your point.

[ott]

I have thought about it.

ANGRIPA (aangrijpen) implies initiating a fight without being provoked, while (for example) TOSLANA (toeslaan; strike) can be defensive. Interestingly, there are not many Fryas words for 'to attack' (there are for 'drive out', 'expel').

Bruce and I are looking for a way to rephrase it, clarifying that unprovoked aggression is meant. I always considered this self-evident.

If ANGRIPA just means physical attack then why isn't it used again in tex 9? Why is the physical attack put forth as by fire instead of having someone in your grip?

Just like any modern language, Fryas has many examples of expressions that (almost) mean the same but can be used in different contexts. For example, when expressing something poetically, jokingly or matter-of-fact like, different vocabulary may be used.

"Fall upon them like radiant [or: lightning] fire" (FAL VPPA THAM NITHER LIK BLIXENANDE FJVR) is poetic and fits in #9, not in #8: If you want to say "dont start fights", you don't say "don't fall upon people like radiant fire".

(ANGRIPA invokes the image of grabbing someone by the jacket in order to throw in on the floor or against the wall.)

[half life over]

Later in the Oera Linda Book, it talks about how the false priests became masters of our laws and distorted our writings. This would put us in the grip of the false priests. Doesn't the 'grip' expression also apply to this meaning? Should we not interfere with Finda and Lyda? I like the work you do, Jan Ott. I just want to make sure that 'grip' doesn't mean more than an unprovoked attack.
https://wiki.oeralinda.org/view/En_04f_Minerva