What I would really like to know regarding "gas mich" as goats milch, is if there is a region where:
- gais loses its diphthong and
- the L in milch is dropped
As far as I can see, both phenomena are pretty rare even by themselves. There is always the possibility of "bad German" (why not), but if we accept this then a number of other options become viable too.
(07-01-2020, 10:54 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I would really like to know regarding "gas mich" as goats milch, is if there is a region where:
- gais loses its diphthong and
- the L in milch is dropped
As far as I can see, both phenomena are pretty rare even by themselves. There is always the possibility of "bad German" (why not), but if we accept this then a number of other options become viable too.
I don't think that finding another occurrence of "gasmich" would make this "good German", though of course it would add to the plausibility of the idea.
Anyway, the other options should also fit with "so nim / nimm" as nicely as You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (Calendarium perpetuum, 1632) and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (Landapotheke, 1772) do.
(07-01-2020, 11:25 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think that finding another occurrence of "gasmich" would make this "good German"
That's not precisely what I meant. There was no preferential spelling yet in the 15th century, so if a group of native speakers said "mich" instead of "milch" that was just as good.
However, what we really need to find out is whether loss of diphthong and L-omission occurred together in the same region. This does not mean we need to find another attestation of "gasmich". But it would help if we found "mich" in the same area as where people write "a" instead of a diphthong "ei" or "ai".
With "bad German" I mean that there is always the possibility that this person was not a native speaker and hence made unpredictable mistakes. But if this is the case, we don't have much to go on because then everything could be a mistake.
However, if "gas" for goat and "mich" for milk can be linked to dialectical phenomena typical for a specific region, we would learn a lot and have near proof for the goat milk reading.
As things stand now, however, both "mich" and "gas" are hard to find
I've been thinking in the same direction.
Pronounciation and writing are different things. While I'm sure it's perfectly possible to pronounce "mich" instead of "milch" (as Thomas Coon, and others, argued a while back in the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. thread), I find it much less probable for one to
write down "mich" for "milch". Because "mich" in itself is a very common word, to be confused with "milch" in writing. But as we can see, "milch" is used as part of composite words (geismilch, mandelmilch etc), where there is no problem of confusion with "mich". So it
could be "geismich" - if we succeeded to discover the similar practice (which we haven't yet).
As I argued back in 2015, "bad German", as Koen names it, is a really good option, which explains away almost everything. Imagine you are copying Arabic or Japanese - in other words, a text in a language or (the more so) the writing system that you do not know. You will introduce all sorts of confusion as early as in the very first line. But this idea has its major fault - the
aror sheey. You would not combine something you know with something you do not know. No valid scenario for that.
(07-01-2020, 02:34 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Pronounciation and writing are different things. While I'm sure it's perfectly possible to pronounce "mich" instead of "milch" (as Thomas Coon, and others, argued a while back in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread), I find it much less probable for one to write down "mich" for "milch". Because "mich" in itself is a very common word, to be confused with "milch" in writing...
This basically sums up how I feel about it. Plus I've never seen "mich" for "milch" in a medieval manuscript. It may exist, but I haven't seen it yet.
My idea is that we'll not see "mich" for "milch", but we may once find e.g. "mandelmich" for "mandelmilch".
I too agree with Koen's point. I believe that these doubts could be solved by someone trained in German philology. We know that Richard Salomon and Erwin Panofsky were convinced that the text means "then take goat’s milk", but they don't provide details about the spelling. Yet, if the unusual spelling is related with a specific region, it belongs to a subject that has been extensively studied. If so, the relevant philological works will be written in German and inaccessible to me. Maybe Helmut, or some other German-speaking user with a humanistic academical background, could provide some additional information?
Back on topic: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. I mentioned goat's milk (lait de cabra) occurring in the Occitan medical work "Thesaur de pauvres" (Ms.: Chantilly, Musée Condé 330, mid-fifteenth century).
Goat's milk definitely shows up in medieval manuscripts, and goat is pronounced and spelled many different ways (not just different spellings like geis, ges, gais but also different words entirely). It's the "mich" as "milk" part that I haven't seen in written form. If someone can come up with even one medieval example (pre-1465-ish) I'd be more comfortable with the idea.
Yes surely goat milk is nothing unusual, it's a common and healthsome drink.