Content uploaded by Rolf Bremmer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rolf Bremmer on Nov 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The First Grammar of Frisian (1681).
ROLF H. BREMMER JR
Rij læuniv e r sit eit Lei de n
IN THE couRSE or the later Middle Ages, the loose federacy of the
seven semi-independent Frisian farmers' republics were annexed one
by one by neighbouring powers. The present-day province of Fries-land
in The Netherlands was annexed by the Duke of Saxony in 1500, and
as a result Low German became the language of administration. In
L525 the Habsburg Emperor Charles V bought Friesland from the
Saxons and introduced Dutch. After 1550 no official documents in
Frisian are any longer found. The language soon disappeared from the
public domain. Dutch became the dominant language, especially after
Friesland had joined Holland politically and religiously in its rising
against the Spanish. In the seventeenth century only some four books
entirely written in Frisian were published. The most important one of
these was the Friesche Rymlerye (1667), the poetic works of Gysbert
Japix (1603-1666), a school principal. In 1681 Simon Abbes Gabbema,
the State Historiographer of Friesland, published a revised and
augmented edition of the Rymlerye in two volumes (Breuker 1989' I).1
Vol. 2 begins, according to the title-page, with a Friesche Grømmatica;
item 2 is an Old Frisian law text presented synoptically from two
manuscripts; item 3 contains a collection of letters from Japix to
Gabbema; items 4 and 5 are two prose texts, translated from French
into Frisian by Japix. This paper deals with the first item only.
* An extended and fully annotated version of this paper will ap¡earin-Frisian in
Phílologia Frisica Anno 1990 (Ljouwert Fryske Akademy, 1991). I gladly express
my gratitude to my brother Marius, a latter-day Maecenas.
I Breuker (1989, I) contains a facsimile reprint of these two volumes, origilally
published by Kerst'Ijallings and Gerrit Heegslag in l-eeuwarden. I refer throughout
to Breuker's pagination of the reprint.
60
HET TWâ,EDE DIEL,
Fcn dy
F R_I E,r C H E
WIRKKEN
Bchelljndc io "ß
I. Friefche Grammatica ¡
II. Dac Liordera bonr
I t I. Friclbhc Brieuwcn,
IV. lliftorjc fen DoRtLrs in CLEoNrctr
V. P¡r¡Ltpr fen MonNAr, HeerÊnPlcllìs.
fen Libben in Stcarren.
Trog
ffiT. GYSBERT JAPIX,
School{cnner in forlezzcr binnc Boalfèrc.
In ru 7 ,ut E!/! de¿d ' wl.zin ern¿ Schrft¿n
!1n't ljeav4tsúrqtt
Trog
,SYMEN AEBBES GAEBBEMA HilhFr.
Neytfor ltzninhmhw!.
TO L tvllí 8, D,
Bv Kln rr Trr ¿r,rñce in G3ßlr?
' H!Ect!ia, Bockfo¡kzpcrs. 16lr.
(By courtesy of læiden University Library)
On closer inspection, it appears thatGrammatica is too good a word for
two small chaþters or tracts, both written in Latin. Tract 1 ftenceforth
FIRST GRAMMAR OF FRISIAN 61
T1) is called: "Quaedam ad Grammaticam Spectantia Lingam (!)
Phrysicam, & Prima Elementa, ante Centum Quinquaginta & Quod
Excurrit Annos Conscripta" "Some Things on the Grammar,
Concerning the Frisian Language, and the First Elements, Described
150 Years Ago and Further Back" (Breuker, I, 1989:285-95). Tract 2
(=T2) is entitled: "Fargmentum (!) de Literis Frisicís" "A Fragment
on the Frisian L-etters" (Breuker l,1989:296-303).
A number of questions must be asked conceming these tracts, either
b,ecause they have not been asked before or, because they have not yet
been properly answered, such as: what is the size and scope of the
Grammar? What is the intended audience? Is the Frisian really 150
years old as the title of T1 claims? Who is the author? It is the purpose
of this paper to provide some possible answers.
SIzs A.ND SCOPE
The size of the tracts is too modest to be of much help in leaming even
the basic principles of Frisian. The traditional components of grammars
at the time comprised: (1) orthography, (2) etymotogy (i.e. morpho-
logy), (3) prosody and (4) syntax. We can therefore conclude at once
that the Friesche Grammaticø is far from complete, as it does not
contain sections on prosody and syntax. Furthermore, the section on
etymology should have contained at least some eight or nine sub-
sections, dealing with the various word classes, such as nouns, adjec-
tives, adverbs, verbs, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, etc. In
reality, the first tract only contains information on nouns, adjectives and
numerals. Tlre Fragmentum, divided into eight short chapters, belongs
to the field of orthography, and is fairly complete. In the Priscian
tradition it discússes the figura "shape" îîd potestas "value" of the
, letÍers omitting their nomen "name", however. Here it is a mixture of a
description of origin (ch. 1) and pronunciation (chs. 2-8) of all the
Frisian vowels and some of the consonants.
The scope of the Grammar may have been to present a fully-fledged
description of Frisian: what we have is not much more than an abortive
attempt.
ROLFBREMMER
62 ROLFBR.EMMER
INTENDED AUDIENCE
In view of this first conclusion, the Grammar can hardly have been
intended for the use in schools. This observation tallies with external
evidence, for, as far as we know, Frisian was never taught at school in
early modem times.
Both tracts are written in Latin, so that lve may assume a certain
level of education on behalf of both the author and the reader. On more
than one occasion Latin sive or v¿l is abandoned in favour of Frisian o/
"or". Such slips seem to betray an author who has either an imperfect
command of Latin or.one who has kept too little distance from the
object he wants to describe.
Affinity with the subject is also shown by the author's occasional use
of the lst pl. as opposed to his preponderant, more descriptive use of
the 3rd pl. In his description of the genitive, after having mentioned
which words use an -s to form the genitive, he carries on (p. 293):
"Cætera nomina genitivum non habent, nec enim dicimus, di leerdez
treppen. de Mounles vioec. Sed pro genitivo utimur in omnibus
particula Fen ,.." "The remaining words have no genitive, for we do not
say: the ladder's rongs, the mill's wing. But instead of the genitive we
use in all instances the particle 'of' ...". Such a use of the lst pl.
perhaps indicates that the tract was not written by one Frisian for
another, but by a Frisian who seeks to explain the essentials of the
language to someone who is still ignorant of it. In T2 the use of "we" is
much more frequent than in T1, betraying an even greater engagement
with the subject on behalf of the author.
A final indication that the tone of the tract is informal, or at least not
too formal, is found in the section on the declination of the cardinals.
The author explains that the masculine and feminine forms of arst
"first" add an -¿, while the neuter form does without one. He then re-
peats this information for the words for 'osecond" up to including
"fifth", and then lists the epicine forms and the neuter ones from "sixth"
through "seventeenth". At this point one would think that the rule is
clear. But for the sake of security, the author (editor?) has printed
oblong beside the remaining cardinals the following instruction (p.
295): "Si ultima[m] demas literam, hoc est E, habes genus neutrum" "ff
FIRST GRAMMAR OF FRISIAN 63
you take away the final letter, that is E, you will get the neuter gender".
Such a piece of advice seems appropriate for someone who wants to
leam the language actively, and it is the only time in the tract that the
reader is directly addressed.
Ðoth T1 and T2 exhibit an interest in matters Frisian that is also
reflected in the rapid increase of Frisian historiography towards 1600. I
suspect they were aimed at the same readership, i.e. the educated up-
per- and middle classes. This was a growing group, not least owing to
the foundation of a university in Franeker in 1585.
THE DATE OFTHE LANGUAGE
According to the caption of T1, we would be dealing here with Frisian
as it was used about 150 years ago or even further back. If we take
1681, the year of its publication, for a starting point, we would arrive at
1531, or further back, for the year of origin of the first tract.l As I
mentioned in my introduction, the early sixteenth century was a period
of rapid decline of Frisian as a written medium, not only in public
documents but also in private writings such as letters, ego documents
and wills. \Vhat is presented in T1, however, does not tally with the
kind of Frisian from ca. 1525.It must be earþ seventeenth century for a
number of reasons.
1. Of pluralization, it is said that nouns which end in a consonant
make their plural by adding the "particle" -ez. This indeed is true for
earþ sixteenth-century Frisian. But then the section carries on with the
exceptions and it is stated that a number of nouns, 18 to be precise, get
an -s plural. The majority of this list, 16, are nouns ending in -irl'er,
most of them agent nouns. There is something conspicious about these
exceptions. The -s is not an original plural marker for Frisian, but was
borrowed from either or Low German, or, more probably, these two
neighbouring dialects together enhanced the import of plural -s (cf.
Bremmer 1989:78, ft. 3). The frrst instances of such an -s that I häve
been able to find date from 1502. Practically all ofthese concernnouns
I Latin conscrþta also allows another interpretation, viz. that it is a grammar of
Frisian as it was written 150 years ago. As I will show the latter interpretation is
equally unlikely.
64 ROLFBREMMER
ending in -er, but they are few and far between. From a fairly short text
(Vries/Oosterhout 1982), I collected bakkeren "bakers", dragheren
"carriers", glesfensteren "window panes", helpren "helpers", presteren
"priests", schomakeren "shoemakers",,Surif.teren "men ffom
Switzerland". Plural -s is shown in the loanword stuvers "kind of
coins" and in the native words wakers "watchmen" and borghers
"burghers, citizens". This state of fluctuation between -s and -en
plurals, however, did not escape the author. In a subsection, I nouns
ending in -er are listed that are said to have both -s and -en.
Remarkably, none of these are agent nouns. As the Grammar assumes
-s to be an ordinary plural morpheme, it must have been written well
after 1500.
2. As for gender, the author makes a daring statement: nouns have no
gender, but are all epicene. He demonstrates this statement by four
examples:
in Moy tzirl "a handsome chap" (m.)
in moy Feynt"a handsome bachelor" (m.)
in moy Faam"a beautiful girf' (f.)
in moy Spicir "a beautiful granary" (m.)
The examples make clear why he arrives at an observation which is
factually incorrect, for Frisian at the time still had three genders,
masculine, feminine and neuter. But the fact that neither the indefinite
article nor the adjective show inflectional endings where they should
have appeared, at least according to Latin grammar, will have led to
this drastic conclusion. The selection of examples is not exactly repre-
sentative: 3 out of 4 are masculine, only one is feminine. No neuter
examples are given. Had the author given this matter some thought, he
might have realized the absurdity of his statement. The endingless ad-
jectives are at first sight remarkable, especially because one would have
expected them to end in -e. I have not yet found early sixteenth century
examples of such adjectives in this position that shed their endings and
thus retain their monosyllabic form. But analysis of the Burmania
Proverbs from 1614 (Brouwer 1940) reveals that this process of
desinential erosion by that time was well on its way. Some 857o of the
FIRST GRAMMAR OF FRISIAN 65
monosyllabic adjectives preceded by an indefinite article and followed
by a noun, irrespective of gender, have a zero ending.
3. Frisian, according to the grammarian (p.287), has no cases apart
flom the genitive, which is formed by adding -s. From the ensuing
examples it appears once more that we are dealing with a stage of lan-
guage that has progressed much in the shedding of inflections. Instead
of *dis caêls stirt, *dis baêms virtil "the root of the tree", he wntes dat
caêls stirt, dy baêms virtil: the determiner is not inflected as might have
been expected according to the rule of concord between determiner and
noun.
4. The non-neuter def. art. in the Grammatica is dy and de. TIte
former presents the older, the latter the younger form. Although Japix
used both forms, the Burmania Proverbs from 1614 have practically
only de. A collection of chronicles (Meijering 1986), representative for
Frisian from ca. 1525, does not yet have de at all. On the basis of these
four linguistic arguments I conclude that the language in T1 cannot date
from the early sixteenth century, but cannot be much later than the
beginning of the seventeenth century, either.
AursoRsgp
- The fact that Simon Gabbema included these two tracts in the collected
work of Gysbert Japix suggests that Japix would be the author. True,
Japix was a schoolmaster and he certainly will have taught grammar to
his pupils, and as a poet he was very sensitive to language, but was he a
grammarian? The collected works, as we have seen, also include some
25 letters written by Japix to Gabbema. The very first of these
(Breuker, l: 324-5), and the only one written in - the remaining 24
are in Frisian - includes a passage in which reference is made to the
Grammar. Apparently Gabbema had sent Japix T1, for all the remarks
concern matter of the frrst tract. Japix proved very enthusiastic.and
expressed the joy he would experience if Gabbema and he could spent
some time together discussing its contents more thoroughly. At the
same time he is critical of what the Grammar has to say and, for
example, objects to the grammarian's usage of <v> for /w/. Whether
Japix also discusses T2 in his letter, as Breuker (1989, II:60) suggests,
is doubtful. The only possible reference to it concems Japix' remark
66 ROLFBREMMER
about the pronunciation of th. Gabbema had apparently pointed out to
Japix that rå could best be read as d. He was not the first to do so.
Sibrandus Siccama (1617:88, Tit. III) had formulated this suggestion
similarly (and was in all probability Gabbema's authority in this
matter):
... the ancient Franks, Frisians and Saxons always used a f for d, as the
Frisians and English still do today. For, where t}te pronounce door,
dien, dat, dese, deerne, dulden, dingen, our ancestors with aspiration
sand iroch (!), thi, thira, thiorne, thilden, thingien ...1
However, Japix does not agree with Gabbema on the pronunciation of
d, and adduces Frisian examples to prove thatth is now pronounced as f
in Frisian. Apparently, he had misunderstood Gabbema, who, like
Siccama, referred to the pronunciation. Letter 1 is the only undated
one, but on good grounds Breuker (1989, II:249-50) has argued that
the letter must date from 1660. As it was Gabbema who had sent the
Grammar to Japix, we must now ask whether Gabbema was its author
as has frequently been suggested and is commonly believed, but has
never been demonstrated.
Simon Abbes Gabbema (1628-1688) grew up in Leeuwarden, the
capital of Friesland, and from 1647 to 1651 he studied classical
philology at the universities of Groningen, Deventer, Utrecht and
Leiden, but never obtained a degree. Back in Leeuwarden in 1,652,he
acquired a reputation of great learning. He published editions of
Petronius' Satyrícon (1654) and the works of Catullus (1659) as well as
a number of mainly poetic works, such as a versifrcation of The Song
of Songs (ca. 1659). In 1659 he was appointed Historiographer of
Friesland. This function implied his having access to many public
records and documents that had been collected by his predecessors.
These he actually had at his disposal and he kept them in his private
abode.
FIRST GRAMMAR OF FRISIAN 67
It has been suggested that Gabbema concocted the Grammar, per-
haps to create a pretext in order to get into touch with the renowned
Gysbert Japix. Even Franciscus Junius, the well-known philologist, had
come to Japix for almost two years (164748; cf. Breuker 1990) to be
instiucted in Frisian, of which fact Gabbema had later been informed by
Junius himself (Breuker 1989, I: 274). As we have seen, Iætter 1 must
in all probability be dated to 1660, and therefore the argument of the
Grammar as a means of attracting Japix' attention becomes invalid,
because their correspondence began in 1654. What I suspect is that
G-abbema found both T1 andT2 among the papers of his predecessors,
sent T1, or a copy thereof, to Japix purely out of interest for the
language. He probably wanted to have Japix's opinion of it. According
to Breuker (1989, tr:60), it is almost impossible for Gabbema to be the
author of either tract, because the Frisian in it is too good to be of
Gabbema's hand. Breuker's intuition, however, can be supported by
philological arguments.
1. The spelling of Frisian in T2 differs markedly from T1. For ex- '
ample, initial /w/ is in T2 always written <w>, as opposed to T1 where
it consistently appears as <v>. This spelling is so conspicuous around
1660 that even Japix in Letter 1 took offence to it. In all the Frisian that
'flowed from Gabbema's pen between 1649 and 1688 I have not come
accross it. Actually, this latter spelling is a feature of sixteenth-century
Frisian, albeit not a common one. The last instance I have found occurs
in a private letter from 1578.
2.In'[], the adjective for "Frisian" is found twice, and is spelled
Phrysic-, both times with a <ph> and <y>. In T2the adjective always is
spelled with an <f> and an <i>, a further indication that the two tracts
are in all probability not by the same author, or, at least, not written at
the same time.
3. T2 strikes one as more leamed in contents than T1. The author
quotes a number of books, enabling us to get an impression of his
knowledge. In ch. I he discusses the figura, the shape, of the Frisian
letters, and states that it is without doubt that the ancestors of the
Frisians, like all Asian nations, used the Greek alphabet. The idea of an
Asian origin for the Frisians goes back to medieval legend, but was
extremely popular in Friesland around 1600. At that time, though,
I "...nam veteres Franci, Frisij, Saxones semper t pro d usurpabant, quod etiam
nunc Frisry & Angli observant. Nam ubi Belgae [...] pronunciant, majores nostri [...]
cum aspiratione efferebant".
68 ROLFBREMMER
serious historians such as Ubbo Emmius, sufficiently proved on the
basis of classical texts that this idea was fictitious. By 1625 Frisian
historians had accepted the truth that there was no Oriental ancestry for
their people (cf. Waterbolk 1952:189). As is clear, the author still
believes it, and thus provides us with a datng post quem non.
4. Many nations, the author carries on, borrowed their aþhabet from
the Greeks, such as the Goths, of whom the Frisians are either settlers
(coloni) or relatives (suggeneres). The Gothic alphabet resembles the
Greekone so much that it must have been borrowed. The Anglo-
Saxons, according to the author, had an alphabet which was quite
different from that of the Goths. The Frisians, - still according to the
author - because they use almost the same language as the Anglo-
Saxons ("cum ea lingua pene usi sint"), must therefore have had an
alphabet resembling either that of the Goths or that of the Anglo-
Saxons. It is interesting to note that we find mention made of the
affinity between English and Frisian, a notion which grew in popularity
in the course of the sixteenth century (Bremmer 1990).
More interesting, perhaps, is the author's awareness of Gothic. He
knows that it is written in Greek letters, and quotes as his authority
from Scriptores Frisiorum (Cologne 1593) by Suffridus Petrus (1527-
1597), a Frisian who worked as a professor of history at the university
of Cologne. Petrus wrote a number of books on the history of the
Frisians, and is among the flrst to report the existance of the Codex
Argenteus. Also derived from Petrus is the author's information that the
influential Frisian diplomat Joachim Hopper (1523-1576) would have
possessed a copy of the Lord's prayer in Gothic letters. In ch. 2 we find
a further important source quoted, viz. Bonaventura Vulcanius' De
Literis & Lingua Getarvm, siue Gothorum (Leiden 1597\. Vulcanius'
book, with all its samples of texts in the ancient Germanic dialects
known at the time, was the frrst attempt to study Gothic seriously. The
third source explicitely mentioned is Justus Lipsius' De Recte
Pronunciatione Linguae Latinae (Leiden 1588; with many reprints,
though). A fourth, unacknowledged source which provided the author
with his Old High German forms in ch. 8, is Paulus MeruIa's Willerami
Abbatis in Canticum Canticorum Paraphrasin Gemina (Leiden 1598).
All four books, therefore, date from the close of the sixteenth century
FIRST GRAMMAR OF FRISIAN 69
This fact provides further evidence thatTZ was written around the turn
of the seventeenth century, particularly as no later works appear to have
been used. It also still expires the thrill of the newly discovered Gothic,
and as such is a document overlooked by Van de Velde (1966).
6. It has escaped attention, for instance, that the author never refers
to the edition of the Gothic gospels by Junius from 1664. Had Gabbema
been the author, this would be odd, for we do know that he possessed a
copy of it. In fact, Gabbema owned quite a number of books relating to
Germanic philology, such as Junius' edition of the Old English
"Caedmonian" poems (Amsterdam, 1655); Junius' Observatíones in
Willerami (Amsterdam 1655), a philological commentary on the Old
High German paraphrase of the Song of Songs; Mauritz Opitz' edition
of the Middle High GermanAnnolied (Danzig 1639); Flacius Illyricus'
edition of Otfrid's Old High German Gospel harmony (Zurich 1571)
and Conrad Gesner's Mithridates (Basle 1555), to mention some (cf.
Feitsma 1965:229-230). Nothing from the contents of these books
emerges inT2. Yet Gabbema knew them well. In his long preface to his
edition of Japix' works - in fact, a eulogy on the Frisian language *
he circumstancially refers to them (Breuker 1989, I:264,272-3).
Surely, were he the author of T2, Gabbema would have found the
bpportunity between 1660, when we first hear of its existence, and
1681, when it was printed, to have brought the information contained in
T2 up to date somehow, if only to show off his erudition. That he has
not done so, shows his respect for the text as he must have found it. He
has treated it like any other document in his possession.
7. A final argument against Gabbema's alleged authorship can be
found in Junius' scholarþ legacy. Or rather, as Thomas Tanner reports
about it in 1697 in a long list of the Juniana kept,in the Bodleian
Library, including "De literis Frisicis ex Gabbemae chartis" (Breuker
1989, tr:6fD. Ex chartis ["from the documents"] to me suggests that
Gabbema must have sent it to Junius along with a number of Old
Frisian manuscripts that he had asked for, probably around 1661
(Breuker 1990:62), shortly afterJapix' lætter I to Gabbema.
As I have said above, Gabbema must have found the tracts among
the documents of his predecessors. That we must look for an author
who possessed many Old Frisian texts, becomes clear from a remark in
70 ROLF BREMMER
passing in T2, ch. 2, where the author says that he has studied the
ancient Frisian laws both in print (this is a reference to the incunable
with legal texts from ca. 1480) and in manuscripts. Only a State His-
toriographer, or someone closely connected to him - the afore-quoted
Siccama springs to mind - would have had sufficient material of this
kind at his disposal.
Further arguments could be adduced to disclaim Gabbema's author-
ship, but this will do for the present. I have tried to show that the two
tracts in all probability belong to the beginning of the seventeenth
century. As such they belong to a peak in the production of books
dealing with Friesland, its history and its culture (cf. V/aterbolk 1952).
Yet, we are still stuck with the information in the title that the Frisian
described in these tracts is 150 years old, or even older. If Gabbema's
hand must be detected somewhere, it is in the title. One possible
interpretation is that he realized that the tracts were old, but had no clue
as to their actual age and therefore made an uninformed guess.
Altematively, but less likely, one of the features of Frisian that struck
philologists at the time was its age. It is usually referred to as "the
ancient Frisian language". Perhaps this is what Gabbema wanted to
express in the title.
The context, though, in which the two tracts appear should not be
overlooked. They appear in a book which combines all the features of
the Frisian language. There is poetry of a high level, both secular and
religious, frivolous and serious. There is devotional prose as well as a
pastoral novelette, there is conespondence. Included also are samples
of law texts in Old Frisian. What the book seems to signal is this:
"Look, reader, you may have thought that Frisian was a language of the
past, and today perhaps good enough for use among farmers. But here
is solid proof to the contrary. All genres can be practised in Frisian - it
can even be the object of linguistic analysis. Frisian is as good as
Dutch. Dutch may have its grammars, but we have one that is so much
older". That is how I would like to interpret the claim for age for the
Grammar. Its inclusion in Gabbema's edition of Japix' works is
motivated by a self-consciousness of the rights and the possibilities of
the Frisian language. Unfortunately, the pious wish at the end of T2:
Reliquia desiderantur - perhaps best translated as "'We want more!"
FIRST GRAMMAR OF FRISIAN 7l
- remained unfulfilled. Unfortunately, too, for the Frisians and their
language, the signal the book gave was never really received by its
reader. serious grammatical interest in Frisian would only start in the
nineteenth century.
REFERENCES
Bremmer Jr, Rolf H. 1989. "Is de Nederlandse meervouds -s van Engelse komaf?",
ABäG 28.77-92.
-. 1990. "Late Medieval and Early Modern Opinions on rhe Affrnity berween
English and Frisian: The Growth of a Commonplace", FLH 9.167-191.
Breuker, Philippus H. 1989. It wurk fan Gysbert Japix. I: Tekst yn facsimite. II
Oerlevering en ûntstean. Ljouwerfi Fryske Akademy.
- . "Q¡ the Course of Franciscus Junius' Germanic Studies, with Special
Reference to Frisian". Aspects of Old Frisian philology, ed. by Rolf H. Bremmer
Jr, Geart van der Meer and Oebele Vries [= ABöG 3l-32], 4248. Amsrerdam:
RodopVGrins: SFFYRUG.
Brouwer, Jelle H. 1940. "De Burmania-sprekwurden". De twadde jiergearkomste
fen de Fryske Akademy, ed. by Pieter Sipma et a1.,82-182. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Feitsma, Antonia et al., eds. 1965. Johannes Hilarides en syn Naamspooringen van
het Plane Friesk,l-II. Estrikken 37-38. Grins.
Meijering, Henk D., ed. 1986. oudfriese kroníeken uit het handschrift Leeuwarden
RA Schw. 3992. Co-Frisica lA-8. Amsterdam/Kiel.
Siccama, Sibrandus 1617. Lex Frisionum sive Antiquae Frisiorum Leges. Fruneker:
Johannes Lamrinck.
van de velde, Roger 1966. De studie van het Gotisch in de Nederlanden. Gent:
Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde.
vries, oebele and Meint G. oosterhout, eds. 1982. De Leeuwarder stedstiole
1502-1504. Estríkken 60. Grins.
Waterbolk, Etzo H. 1952. Twee eeuwen Friese geschiedschrijving. Groningen:
rñy'olters.
AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN TIIE THEORY AI\ID
HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE
General Editor
E. F. KONRAD KOERNER
(University of Ottawa)
SeTies III - STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE SCIENCES
Advisory Editorial Board
Sylvain Auroux (Paris); Ranko Bugarski (Belgrade)
H. H. Christmann (Tübingen); Rudolf Engler (Bern)
Hans-Josef Niederehe (Trier); R. H. Robins (London)
Rosane Rocher (Philadelphia); Vivian Salmon (Oxford)
Aldo Scaglione (New York); Kees Versteegh (Nijmegen)
Volume 68
Anders Ahlqvist (ed.)
Diversions of Galway
DIVERSIONS OF GALV/AY
PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS
FROM ICHoLS V, GALWAY, IRELAND,l.-6 SEPTEMBER 1990
Edited by
ANDERS AHLQVIST
in collaboration with
KONRAD KOERNER
R. H. ROBINS
IRÈNE ROSIER
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERD AM/PHILADELPHIA
*
1992