19-06-2023, 08:54 PM
I've spent quite some time looking at medieval cookbooks in German these days, and one of the things I noticed is that they often include the ingredient "mandel", i.e almonds. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that gave us the previously noticed attestation "mandelmich", also has a recipe form "mandelmuos":
If you want to make almond butter, then take almond milk, and some kind of bread etc...
Ever since I learned about the medieval cook's love for "mandeln", something kept nagging at me about f66r. It's probably nothing, since it requires a number of steps to be true and then still isn't perfect. But then again, perfect is much to ask in a Voynich context.
[attachment=7452]
Apart from the separate glyph, we've got three "words". All four chunks of text (the glyph and the three words) are thrown haphazardly onto the page. There is no clear line or paragraph. This is the first 'stretch': we would need the order to be left-middle-right (*en *el mus) rather than top-bottom (*en mus *el).
The second issue is the two first letters that appear messed up. The bottom word appears to have been written as "mel" first, then corrected to "del". We can see that the word on the left probably said "den" first, but was corrected to something hidden in the fold of the page. So what if they had accidentally switched "m" and "d"? Wrote "denmel" instead of "mendel"?
The third problem is of course that the vowel is an "e" instead of an "a", at least I think it's an e.
Normally I wouldn't give it a second thought, but "pox leber" and "so nim" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also point towards recipes. And the first letters have been corrected. An accidental switching of "m" and "d" would explain why. "Mendelmus" does not ignore the corrections but takes them into account.
The syllabification might have a whole range of explanations. It would also be present in the "den musdel" interpretation.
Anyway, it will probably remain unsolved, but I thought I'd add this to the options.
Quote:So du wilt machen ein mandelmus . so nim mandelmilch . vnd semelin broet . vnd snide daz wuerfeleht vnd tuo daz in die mandelmilch vnd erwelle daz . vnd nim einen apfel vnd snit den wuerfeleht . vnd roest den in eime smaltze . vnd tuo daz vf daz mandelmuos . vnd gibz hin .
If you want to make almond butter, then take almond milk, and some kind of bread etc...
Ever since I learned about the medieval cook's love for "mandeln", something kept nagging at me about f66r. It's probably nothing, since it requires a number of steps to be true and then still isn't perfect. But then again, perfect is much to ask in a Voynich context.
[attachment=7452]
Apart from the separate glyph, we've got three "words". All four chunks of text (the glyph and the three words) are thrown haphazardly onto the page. There is no clear line or paragraph. This is the first 'stretch': we would need the order to be left-middle-right (*en *el mus) rather than top-bottom (*en mus *el).
The second issue is the two first letters that appear messed up. The bottom word appears to have been written as "mel" first, then corrected to "del". We can see that the word on the left probably said "den" first, but was corrected to something hidden in the fold of the page. So what if they had accidentally switched "m" and "d"? Wrote "denmel" instead of "mendel"?
The third problem is of course that the vowel is an "e" instead of an "a", at least I think it's an e.
Normally I wouldn't give it a second thought, but "pox leber" and "so nim" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also point towards recipes. And the first letters have been corrected. An accidental switching of "m" and "d" would explain why. "Mendelmus" does not ignore the corrections but takes them into account.
The syllabification might have a whole range of explanations. It would also be present in the "den musdel" interpretation.
Anyway, it will probably remain unsolved, but I thought I'd add this to the options.
