Talk:Freising manuscripts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To Primož

Nice work Primož. Just two questions. How should English people now call Brižinski spomeniki. In "semi-original" (Brižinski spomeniki) or in English (Freising manuscipts)?

We should also explain why are they called "Brižinski" in Slovene. You can cut a piece from the article **Slovene Language** about this and put it right here. Best regard and (živjo) -- XJamRastafire 08:14 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

[edit] Manuscripts or manuscripts

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)

[edit] Reference 2

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)

Well then in which language? What are the hypothesis according that book? --Jonson22 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what is the hypothesis in that book. --JTrdi 21:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input requested

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