What is the goat doing with you?
"so nim ( the) goat me too".
That would be just nonsense.
What if the "g" is not a "g" but a "z"?
Then it would be "so nim-z as mich o" (so it takes me too).
Spoken " so nim zas mich o" now it is correct.
Question:
"smallpox" =?> smallbox =?[alternate spelling]> smallboc? Where a 'boc' is Middle Dutch for a male goat.
(03-05-2023, 12:38 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."mich" as Milch had no idea about German and these dialects.
Do you actually know of any dialect where they would say "Mich" for "Milch"?
No, I've never heard this variant of saying milk for "me". Depending on the emphasis, there are also "miig, migg".
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I still know milk as, "Muich, Mölch. Mälch, Mulch" as in the word finder.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
@Koen
I now have the Alemannic variant of "Gais" here
In this dialect form, one can already speak of extreme.
The Bavarian variant is also easier for me to read than the Alemannic one.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(03-05-2023, 09:16 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, I've never heard this variant of saying milk for "me". Depending on the emphasis, there are also "miig, migg".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
No, the question is the other way around (I think some things get lost here in translation
) Would anyone drop the L in "milch" when talking about milk? Like anyone in any dialect in any country? Is saying "mich" for milk a thing anywhere?
No, never read or seen it. That on both sides.
Milk to me or me to milk.
Who said that "gas mich" should be read as goat's milk?
When was that, and which person was that. Where is the written evidence and what is his linguistic background?
The same one where sunflowers and bananas were mentioned?
The words in this arrangement do not exist, and the context is not right either. There should still be some sense to the sentence.
(04-05-2023, 12:21 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Who said that "gas mich" should be read as goat's milk?
When was that, and which person was that. Where is the written evidence and what is his linguistic background?
It was said by Professor of history You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., born in Berlin, so I assume a native German speaker. Therefore, I would not dismiss it as quickly as the sunflowers. But it would be interesting to find the supposed dialectical background, if it exists. Unless "mich" is supposed to be a scribal abbreviation of "Milch", in which case it has nothing to do with dialect. But that feels like a weird place to abbreviate, and there appears to be no abbreviation mark either.
Also, there isn't more of a space between "gas" and "mi" than between "mi" and "ch", so it's likely that "gasmich" is one word, which would fit in the goatmilk narrative.
Not to mention that the goat milk fits rather well with the billy goat liver.
As in:
If you don't have goat liver, then take goat milk.
There is an occurrence of "geißmich" (no L) at the bottom of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. If I understand correctly, the main paragraph is a recipe for "an oil to make hair of a golden color". The same paragraph has "Frawenmilch" at line 3 and at p.155 it has "geißmilch" (with an L). So "geißmich" looks like a typo and I doubt it is a meaningful parallel for a word in a manuscript.
[
attachment=7307]
About isoglosses (new word for me), German philology should probably be the place to start. There must be secondary sources where the subject is discussed: these sources may not mention "pox" or "mich as milch" specifically, but if these are regional variants they must fall within larger phenomena that have certainly been studied. Of course, a pre-requisite to access studies in the field is a good knowledge of German: I certainly don't qualify
The fact that Salomon and Panofsky (German academics who devoted their professional life to the study of ancient artefacts and manuscripts) found the idea plausible sounds significant, but confirmation in philological studies would make it easier to build more consensus.
EDIT: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (1613) corrects "geißmich" and makes clear that the preceding word was meant to be "nim"...