I wanted to ask, have the linguists ever provided a description or a reasonable explanation about the texts on page 116? I would like to read about it.
Especially the Latin part. I understand the German part myself.
The meaning and translation should not be a problem for a linguist. And while he's at it, he could also contribute something about the origin.
That shouldn't be a problem, after all, it's your profession.
The "Latin" parts of f116v are laid out like a charm and the "words" in charms don't always have to make sense. They are "power" words intended to be mysterious or magical, or they are words that have lost their original meaning.
I'm not claiming it's a charm, but the layout IS very similar to medieval charms and it was very common for medieval charms to include a mixture of Latin and German.
(12-02-2021, 03:30 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not claiming it's a charm, but the layout IS very similar to medieval charms and it was very common for medieval charms to include a mixture of Latin and German.
Although certainly known to those discussing this, but something that holds weight for me particularly, so wanted to add mention, is how incredibly common the addition of charms, written in another hand than that of the manuscript, are in a manuscript’s final pages. This is particularly true for medically related ones.
With reference to f. 116v, it can't be translated because there's still a lot of uncertainty about how to transcribe it. On the very top line, the third letter LOOKS like it MIGHT be an [x], but it's smudged, so it's hard to say for sure. Same for the last letter of the second word. Many of the letterforms are ambiguous, or faded, or smudged. I know a lot of people on this site have strong opinions about the transcription of these lines (there are several threads about it), but it's not entirely clear. It's not the linguists fault that there's not good translation. The text just isn't legible enough.
The point is not whether it can be translated or not. The point is, if no real answer is possible, where it seems possible, give more attention to a statement on the rest of the VM text than other VM researchers.
I don't need a linguist, I need a cryptologist first.
The opinion of a linguist is irrelevant.
The fact that a line of "normal" Latin text cannot be interpreted with certainty is certainly not unique to the VM, so this may have nothing to do with cryptology. Maybe the handwriting is extra confusing, or whatever they copied became corrupted beyond easy recognition. This has little to do with the relevance of linguists.
Our inability to read You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is more a failure of imaging than a failure of palaeography.
(12-02-2021, 07:51 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that a line of "normal" Latin text cannot be interpreted with certainty is certainly not unique to the VM, so this may have nothing to do with cryptology. Maybe the handwriting is extra confusing, or whatever they copied became corrupted beyond easy recognition. This has little to do with the relevance of linguists.
Having studied the handwriting for years (and collecting literally thousands of samples to document similar hands), I can say that the handwriting is not confusing.
As Lisa points out, there are a few things we can't be sure of, like the "x". It is probably an x, but we don't know for certain. Similarly in "po* lebe*" we cannot be certain of the last letter because it is faint and unclear. It could be "r" or "n" or something that they started to scrape away because it didn't belong.
Also, are the "v"-like letters on the last line "v" or are they "p" with the tail wiped out (there are removed marks under the last line)? This too is unclear.
BUT, the majority of the characters are readable and mostly typical for the time. When I can fit it in, I will post examples of similar hands.
Too 116, it looks like it's a curse.
The curse alone does not prevent me from writing individual words correctly.
Now the linguist comes into play. He is supposed to explain possibilities to me. Species or possible origin. Language archive.
If it is written clearly, I don't need a linguist. A librarian would probably have more insight, or someone who has studied history.
Words like "aui" or "oi", when I see them, I think I'm somewhere in Polynesia.
But no, they are dying German dialects.
They are recorded and stored in writing and today also in sound.
This is exactly where I need the linguist.