(05-05-2023, 12:57 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have posted this before
2) The mich problem has been discussed ad infinitum as well
I am trying to ask a new question, which is: do the proposed dialectical properties belong to the same area? For you this might be obvious since you live in a German-speaking area, but it isn't for everybody and, to my knowledge, has not yet been demonstrated.
Summary of the investigation so far:
* Gas (or "gaas") for goat is typical for modern-day Austria, more specifically towards the east and south.
* Mich instead of Milch: you say "this is just a scribal mistake", but we could make it more interesting by adding that there may have been an assimilation going on between the "l" and the preceding vowel. This would explain why this "mistake" was made in the first place, and add a lot more weight to our argument. So far it does seem like the loss of "l" always affects the preceding vowel, so the form "mich" is still unlikely to appear. But knowing that something was going on with the "l", again in Austria, make it so much more convincing.
* Pox instead of Box: if I understand correctly, a certain "confusion" between P and B happens/happened in much of the German-speaking world.
If all of the above is correct, this means that we no longer have to say "Gas is goat, just take my word for it", "Mich is actually Milch, he just made a random mistake, just let me add a letter", "pox is actually bocks, just believe me". Instead, we can point to a linguistic area where these three things actually make sense.
Knowing this area can help us pinpoint specific sources to focus on (e.g. skimming digitized cookbooks from certain regions). Knowing the specific dialect can also help us to assess the other words better, and build a stronger, more substantiated case for a specific reading.
Or we could just keep saying "it is like this", and then complain that we have to repeat this ad infinitum.