Talk:Freising manuscripts

message: Which of the names is more appropriate? Uppercase or lowercase? See also Voynich manuscript for a similar discussion. --Eleassar my talk 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've discussed the issue with Doremo. We've agreed to keep the lowercase. --Eleassar my talk 14:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuscripts or manuscripts 

message: The English version of the article has a reference to:
A. V. Isačenko, Jazyk a pôvod frizinských pamiatok (The language and origin of the Freising manuscripts), Bratislava 1943
According to this reference the language "might not be Slovene". I think that this should be removed as there is no doubt the language is Slovenian. I don't even see who has added this note. You have thousands statements that the language is Slovene and one statement, that says this might not "necessarily" be true. The book was published  in an occupied territory during WWII, when Germans were trying everything to break patriotism of nations like Slovenian, denying their culture, language, history,... I don't think a reference like that should be included in Wiki, we don't even know, what exactly is written in that book.
:Obviously people DO follow the article and they are reverting changes the minute they are done. But they are not interested in discussing why, who, were,... I don't like that. I will try one more time. The link that the person who reverted my changes, gave is not mentioning claims in the article, that this is not Slovenian language. The book is said to be "secondary literature", that's all. The fact is, that the book WAS written during WWII on occupied territory. This is relevant in my opinion as it's still the only source out of several hundreds, that claims this to not be Slovenian language. In that time there were also books written, that were claiming that Slovenians as the nation don't exist. And I will say one more time, that the book might not even mention that, maybe that's an original research, article writer's own understanding of the book? I'm not saying it is, but there is always a possibility.
:I realize that Wikipedia is supposed to have all sort of written (published) opinions, but there is a line. If I write a book and say the language is Chinese, would this  come to Wiki? Also in Slavic peoples article, I don't see any mentioning of "According to Hitler's Mein Kampf, these people are inferior". So there is a line when it comes to quoting different sources, relevant or less relevant. --JTrdi 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then in which language? What are the hypothesis according that book? --Jonson22 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what is the hypothesis in that book. --JTrdi 21:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 2 

message: Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested 

message: According to the main article, the manuscripts were written "between 972 and 1093, most likely before 1000".
According to the Slovene language article, that date is "between 972 and 1093, most likely in the later years of the range".
Something is wrong here. - Bobber0001 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Accoruding to Lunt's grammar of OCS, p. 16, it can be dated between 998 and 1027. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Freising manuscripts are usually dated between 972 and 1039. SAZU, NUK According to the Slovenian literary historian sl:Matija Ogrin: "Konec 10. stoletja, po letu 972. BS II in III sta nastala najverjetneje še pred letom 1000, najpozneje pa do 1022 ali 1023. BS I je verjetno najstarejši, a je mogel biti zapisan še najpozneje do leta 1039. Časovni razpon možnega nastanka je torej med 972 in 1039." meaning "in the late  10th century, after the year 972. BS II and III were most probably produced already before 1000, in any case not later than 1022 or 1023, BS I is most probably the oldest, but could be written till 1039. The time span of the possible origin is therefore between 972 and 1039." That's for the manuscripts themselves. The texts are even older.  They were probably created till the end of the 8th century. --Eleassar my talk 16:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I think they have not been radiocarbon dated yet. There were some attempts to prove that the dating to the late 10th or the early 11th century was incorrect, but have been shown to be ungrounded. --Eleassar my talk 08:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancy 

message: i azze sza glagolo
 z lodiv . i vzem igo
 delom . i vzem iego
 loþocam . tó se uve-
 rivu iz bog vze mo
 gocki . izi iega zin .
 izi zvueti duch. data
 tri imena edin bog
 gozpod zvueti . 
 ise zouri nebo . ls z
 emlo . to se iz co ie-
 ga miloszti .
 from thougth0-light-flash1 in words
 from lodiv2 . and in all his
 dids. and all his 
 goodnes3 . that for is 'confi-rmed faith'
 that god all mi-ghty4 .
 and that his zin (sin syn son? or zen).
 and that holly spirit. data5 for
 three names . odin6 god
 lord /of universe/of life/of light.7
 and here is light of dawn on skay .
 glowing over our land .
 this all is from his love to us.
  
addeum 0-7: <-- cuted 216a2488ded1fac0e501b0716bcf7f2a  /home/lea/bibilioteka/tb-jezyki/fm-notes -->
 TB cc nc 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Text