The Voynich Ninja

pox = bocks, genitive for boc (goat)

Not Devil, but God (in vulgar discourse). I once posted about that:

Quote:from the perspective of medieval Europe, “God’s liver” is more suggestive than “goat’s liver”. In DWB we find some interesting context examples, such as:

“dasz euch pox leber schend!”
“pox marter!”
“pox glück, schau wie der stattknecht hauffen // mit latern dort auffer lauffn!”

etc.

It appears that the reference to “pox” and expressions like “pox something” - this "something" being anatomic objects (pox leber – God’s liver, pox pauch – God’s stomach, pox haut – God’s skin, pox grind – God’s scab), corpse (pox leichnam), passions (pox leiden, pox marter) etc., – represent the natural element of the medieval European culture: blasphemous swear. The doctoral thesis of Gerd Schwerhoff [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.], section 4.1.4, provides insight into this cultural phenomenon and numerous examples from “Fastnachtsspielen”. Schwerhoff also includes an example from Rabelais: “...po cab de bious, das dich gots leiden shend, pote de Christo…” (Gargantua & Pantagruel, vol. I, chapter 17), which vividly illustrates its international nature (note that “pox” is ultimately “gots”). I guess that “holy shit” is of the same family.

For deeper insight, one may refer to Schwerhoff's thesis. It's in German language so I was not able to read it in full...

Whether "pox" is a "sounds similar" substitute for "god's" (like saying fudge instead of f*ck), or refers to the devil, the result for us is the same, namely that in that case someone wrote an expletive on the page. Whether they use "pox" to avoid saying the holy name of God or the frightening name of the Devil is irrelevant to our purpose.

What is relevant, is that "pox" is a perfectly valid equivalent of "bock's", namely a male goat's (liver). 

If someone wanted to get to the bottom of this (a rare occurrence, but you never know), what would have to be checked is the following:

Did German scribes of the 15th century ever replace /ks/ sounds with [x] at the ends of German words? Did they ever do so for infinitives of words ending in a /k/-sound? When did they use [x] to begin with? When did this practice start? In the case of "pox", do any examples exist from the 15th century, the time of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. inscription?

Before we know this, we cannot favor the expletive reading in my opinion. The ingredient reading should get preference given the presence of "so nim" on the same page.

(20-07-2023, 07:55 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The ingredient reading should get preference given the presence of "so nim" on the same page.

It's far fetched in my opinion to assert that all portions of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. fit into a single context. The spell and the last line indeed look like they were written in a single pass and are tied by that descender of "h" going to o and then ascending back to maria, but the first line is clearly of a different pass. May be something completely disjoint.

For datings, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Ayrer is 2nd half of 16th century, for datings of quotes in Schade one has to consult Schade directly, I guess.

I'm deep into handwriting right now, and I can tell two things:

* every word on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is written in the same style. It might be done by the same person, but there are certainly irregularities, so this is hard to tell.
* it is very unlikely that this was written after the 15th century

Even if there weren't any other recipe-related phrases on the page, I'd still call it a 50/50 between random ingredient or random expletive (reasons could be thought up for both, the fact remains that we have so little context). With the addition of "so nim", a typical recipe instruction, and a drawing of a goat (?) on the same page, I'd still say the likelihood of "ingredient" is greater. 

But like I said, we'd be able to talk about this more informedly if the usage of word-final [x] in 15th century German were investigated.

(20-07-2023, 08:18 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.* every word on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is written in the same style. It might be done by the same person, but there are certainly irregularities, so this is hard to tell.
* it is very unlikely that this was written after the 15th century

I agree with both points (and I would add that it is the person (or one of the persons) who created the VMs), but that does not mean a unified context for the entirety of the content presented. The most appropriate example would be pen probation on the last page of a MS (btw, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the last page). It would have been done by one and the same person (most probably the scribe, or the last scribe if there were many), but different pieces of pen probing could be altogether different things, drawings and phrases.

The supposed goat is a strange portion worth separate discussion. It's deliberately placed into the half-torn corner as if to separate it from the other content. What's the relevance of the rennet-bag if pox leber speaks of liver instead? Also, what's the lady and its significance?

I am a big fan of the pen trials explanation, simply because it makes a lot of sense: last page, disconnected fragments...

So I do agree with you in that we don't need to look for a unified explanation for the whole thing: that is likely impossible, and in my opinion probably counterproductive. 

A very interesting thing about pen trials is that they also don't need to contain a grand statement. Sometimes they would just writ the alphabet, or the words "pen trial" or something similar. Sometimes a monk would write a phrase from a common prayer.

When something else is written as a pen trial, it may provide us with some insight into what the scribe had on his mind. In this case, we can see that he had been reading or even copying recipes at one point, because he opted for a "so nim" fragment. That is why I would find a disconnected "ingredient" fragment still more likely than an expletive. 

That said, the use of x may point in the expletive direction. But more research into this particular use of x must be done first.

(20-07-2023, 10:54 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That said, the use of x may point in the expletive direction

If x is interchangeable with cks then I don't see how exactly that would point to the expletive on its own. To me it looks much like the p/b interchangeability. It would be used as genitive for bock, no matter whether expletive (for God's) or literal (for goat's)

Regarding dating, just noted that the above screenshot from Idiotikon made by Aga shows various dates around 1400 for the "expletive" use of "box".

[attachment=7502]

I don't think I've ever written about it before.
When I look at the one curse, it doesn't use an "x" but a double "ss".
So the sentence "six marix morix vix" gets a meaning.
"sis maris moris vis". Meaning something like "you ???? want to die". Now "maris" can mean wart, but also "goat".
I personally like " you wart want to die" better than "you goat want to die".

[attachment=7503]

The only "x" that needs to be clarified is with "pox".

Wenn ich mir den Satz aus dem Rezept ansehe. "item poch leber .....nyeren...."
"Item und Idem" ist die Kurzform von "in dem".
Wörter wie "Buch, Buech, Buoch, Puch, oder vielleicht jetzt auch Poch".
So lässt sich der Satz auch so auslegen.
"In dem Buch (steht), Leber und Nieren in Scheiben schneiden ......

When I look at the sentence from the recipe. "item poch liver .....nyeren...."
"Item and Idem" is short for "in dem / in which".
Words like "book, buech, buoch, puch, or maybe now poch".
This is how the sentence can be interpreted.
"In the book (it says), slice the liver and kidneys ......

So "poch" has a completely different meaning.

@Bernd, wird immer noch verwendet. Man sagt den Kindern "jetzt gib's gleich eins aufs "fudi oder Füdli".  -li ist die Verkleinerungsform -lein. Maus, Mäuslein.

(21-07-2023, 12:23 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If x is interchangeable with cks then I don't see how exactly that would point to the expletive on its own. To me it looks much like the p/b interchangeability. It would be used as genitive for bock, no matter whether expletive (for God's) or literal (for goat's)

I'm probably looking at this differently (as a linguist), but the two phenomena are not the same.

For p/b, the change depends on the dialect of the speaker. If they say /pok/, they write a [p]. If they say /bok/, they write a [b]. You write what you hear.
For [x] though, the question is not one of dialects but of spelling. Assume a dialect area where the word "bock" or "pock" is pronounced with a /k/-sound at the end. In that case a conventional spelling would be [pock], which is all fine. 

Now if you turn this into a genitive form, you say /poks/. The standard procedure would be to write [pocks]. BUT, a weird spelling option exists (from Latin), where you can represent /ks/ by [x]. To do so is a spelling choice, not a reflection of one's way of speaking. 

So my question is: when did medieval German scribes make this spelling choice, to represent a /ks/ sound in their native language by the "Latin" [x]. It certainly happened, but did it also happen for genitive forms? People like "word images" to stay consistent, so pock+s = pocks. If you write [pox], you infringe on the word image of "pock". 

So why is "pox" more likely for the expletive than for the animal genitive? Well, for one, I only recall seeing examples of the -x spelling with the expletive - but I have not studied this in depth yet. And second, I suspect that when the expletive form is used, people think less about the original word image [pock] or [Gott] or whatever. "Pox" just becomes its own word with its own word image, so the /x/ is more likely.

In short, writing an [x] in /poks/ or /boks/ is a spelling choice, and my hypothesis is that it is more likely to occur in the expletive usage. However, I might be wrong, and this should be tested. The research question is basically: did 15th century scribes ever spell genitive forms ending in -/ks/ with an /x/? If they did, the question "ingredient vs expletive" remains open. If they didn't, that is a very strong argument in favor of the expletive.

I dont know if the following have been discussed before. There is a potential pok in the 116v:
[attachment=7505]
The first letter may be a P partially erased.
The second letter may be an o not good written. It also seems an a but it wouldnt be well written as well.
The third letter is more interenting, at first glance it can be a b, but also a k. K and b could be written with a similar shape, there arent samples of k in the 116v but there are a few b to compare with.
A sample of k and b with similar outer shape can be fount in a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I posted before:
[attachment=7507]
Von einer pokch leber
NIm ein pokchleber vnd hakch sie klain also grün vnd

I have marked a few k and b, they have a similar outer shape though the k have a different inner shape.

The context is also in favor of a written pok.