Since there is actually no spelling in the alemanic language, the question of a rule is rather symbolic.
In the meantime I have not only narrowed down the place where the dialect occurs in VM, but also where it cannot come from. ( Based on the text ).
The previous result sometimes agrees with the sketches.
Example dialects where it does not come from. But at the same time how a fingerprint can be seen.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
One can only hope that the car will obey the rules and not put too much of the romanic dialects into the cryptogram.
(23-02-2020, 04:12 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since there is actually no spelling in the alemanic language, the question of a rule is rather symbolic.
Nonsense; spelling rules is one thing, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. There are still inherent "rules" as to how language is used, there are just no formal rules as to how to reflect that in writing. But the dialectical readings one proposes do have to make sense to the time and place as proposed.
More importantly grammar and syntax definitely cannot be ignored, and they are less flexible than vocabulary and pronunciation. It is not enough to show that certain word forms exist in isolation, they have to make a grammatically and syntactically acceptable sentence.
As we have seen, this is not always the case in medieval Latin, but it should be when we assume a scribe is writing in his native language. There is a conflict between proposing rare dialectical forms on the one hand and bad grammar and syntax on the other.
There is no rule, there are recommendations.
Example: You should not stop everything with (ä) and rather use an (e). But nevertheless many people need (ää)
A rule may exist within a region, but not among themselves. That's what makes it so difficult to understand. So it can be that in the same place
it is snowing ( es schne,it ) es schniit, es schnait,es schneiet, be written. Here the ear before the eye counts.
blut or plut, where plut can also mean bare bottoms.
I actually agree with Aga here, especially if not writing in one's native tongue. There are plenty of examples of mangled grammar on this site alone (it would be churlish to pick fault as the research itself is excellent).
Another point, the passage in question could well have been a rough note scrawled in the margin at 5am by a tired 16th C Voynichero. We could all relate to that.
(23-02-2020, 05:24 PM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.especially if not writing in one's native tongue
That's fine, but then you are resorting to the "bad German" argument. In that case it becomes hard to single out one meaning though, since it opens wide the gates for all kinds of ungrammatical interpretations.
Note that I use "grammar" in the actual meaning: "the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases and words in a natural language", not in the popular English meaning of "spelling". Grammatical rules are known intuitively by adult native speakers. Spelling rules are a post-medieval construct.
Basically, you're right, but I have to think like at 1400.
I don't think it's written in Alemanic or German anyway.
But I remember that his Latin is limited and he includes Latin dialect forms. What kind of romanesque I might find out from his german dialect.
Think German, write Latin. There even ( daiin daiin daiin ) makes sense. With comma even 5 times in a row.
If the vocabulary does not allow anything better.
I've read a lot of medieval German manuscripts, in many different dialects and I do see these spellings quite frequently, but I don't believe I've ever seen grammar that's strange like the text on 116v.
What I mostly see is influences from nearby languages. For example, if it's near the Italian border, you can see the Italian-influenced words and loan-words. If it's near the French border, you can see the French-influenced words and loan-words, but the words are still readable, the sentences are still sentences, and are still grammatically discernible.
I've been thinking about the syntactic possibilities for this sentence. It smells of second person, someone being addressed (...dabas, maybe portas, te).
So the N in these charms, I guess will usually be a name of someone talked about on the third person? Like the object or subject of the sentence? Or might it be the same person who is being addressed in the second person? Is there some type of sentence we are more likely to expect?
Two people? Do you think of Anchilles and Chiron ? ( Anchiron ) Greek mythology.
The god where he heals himself. Origin of the today's medical profession.
Sorry I was unclear, I mean grammatical second person. "Te" could be a second person pronoun, dabas and maybe even portas could be second person verbs. The sentence looks like it is addressed to someone.