The Voynich Ninja

@Nick
Have you seen it? Again with the feet and the young (Ziegen) flesh.
New book, same text.
I hope you write a paper about it.
Greetings PM

(13-04-2024, 08:04 PM)zobowiazanie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The bucket has a yellowish substance in it which could be honey, and the figure has some of it on their belly. 

This is not easy to see on the scans, but increasing contrast and saturation shows that the observation is correct.

(23-06-2024, 05:29 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is not easy to see on the scans, but increasing contrast and saturation shows that the observation is correct.

This is indeed a very interesting observation that allows various speculations.

Especially since yellow paint is known to have faded a lot over time, so it must once have been much more visible. We can be almost sure that the yellow substance was applied to the stomach. (I'm saying this against my own prejudice since I was quite fond of the "widow's share" explanation, but this rules it out).

Surely it has nothing to do with "inheritance" "muss-del". "Pflichtteil"
If you look, it also has an "m" under the "d".
A correction has taken place. "muss-mel". This would then be a dish made from flour. " A "flour mush".
Now you have to explain to me how you can go from a flour dish to a division of an inheritance in a single thought process.
The thought alone suggests that he doesn't know Upper German.
If you know the dialect, the whole sentence is crystal clear.

(24-06-2024, 05:28 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you know the dialect, the whole sentence is crystal clear.

Ah, excellent. To me it's not clear yet, I have a few more questions.

1. In Germanic languages, the more specific part usually comes first, which is why we say "a red apple" and not "an apple red" (as one would in French). So why does it say "mush flour" and not "flour mush"? Wouldn't we expect a reverse word order, i.e. "melmuss"?
   
2. In "muss mel", the article is supposed to conform to "mel", since "muss mel" is a type of "mel". Since mel is neuter, we would expect the article das. Why is the article den or der? 
   
3. If it is all perfectly clear, why was the "m" corrected to "d"? This "d" is written like a mirrored "6", which is the same style used in the supposed article den/der. I would assume this correction to have been performed by the original writer, and not a Pellingesque parade of people mistakenly correcting the marginalia of others. So why was the m changed to d?
   

Quite simply.
The sentence was already finished with "den muss me".
It only means "den muss man". then you have to.
The correction "den muss de" then must this/this.
It only says that you have to do something, but it doesn't say what.
Question. Did he just not want to write what it is, or could he not finish writing it because of the space (sponge?).
But in order to write the sentence correctly, "de" simply became "des". That's the name of the whole sentence. "und den muss des" and then must this.  It just doesn't say what it is.
And you can see that the "s" was added later.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Suppengewürz / Gewürzsuppen
First what it is, and then what it's called. Name.

It was a bad example:
Better.
What needs to be in the soup? Suppengemüse / Soup vegetables.
Now it's a vegetable soup / Gemüsesuppe. It's the name of the dish.

(24-06-2024, 07:23 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Germanic languages, the more specific part usually comes first, which is why we say "a red apple" and not "an apple red" (as one would in French). So why does it say "mush flour" and not "flour mush"? Wouldn't we expect a reverse word order, i.e. "melmuss"?

I have long suspected that this is meant to say "musmel" rather than "mussdel", but of course it was never more than a suspicion (still true today).
Conforming to what you write, this is not a type of "mus" (porridge) but a type of "mel" (flour).
To be more precise, it is a type of flour from which you can make a porridge.

While this may seem confusing, it is the same as "Suppenhuhn" (soepkip) from which you can make Huehnersuppen (kippensoep). Not sure if in English you would call this a soup chicken.

Now all this does not seem compatible with rubbing it on one's belly.

For me, an important point is the ending, or double "s" in "muss". For me, it is a completed word.

The second point. If you look closely, the "d" is above the "m". The "d" came later. So I've already ruled out "mel" because it's been corrected.