The word peinigen is a transitive verb which requires an object. It is not just 'causes pain'. But that is really a detail.
(17-12-2025, 06:19 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, I did not mean that it is a complete sentence with a subject, predicate, and object, but rather a list in the form of alliteration.
The reason I pointed it out is because this is how essentially all "good old"/old-fashioned Voynich text translations worked. A series of (very) loosely related words, which are turned into a sentence by arbtrarily adding words. While that sort of makes sense in the 'decryption' step, it is usually not sensible when one thinks of the 'encryption' step. The missing words should have been there.
That also applies here.
Just chiming in to make another plug for my Old Occitan/Old French-like Romance translation of the first line, which has the advantage of being a full, grammatical sentence.
(17-12-2025, 06:40 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reason I pointed it out is because this is how essentially all "good old"/old-fashioned Voynich text translations worked.
I completely agree with you regarding translations of the VMS, and I am very aware that one must be extremely careful here. I am absolutely not a fan of eisegesis.
However, in the case of a
three-word marginal note, I assume a different register: abbreviated, alliterative, and process-oriented.
In such marginal notes or keyword lists, verbs are often elliptical and can function as shorthand for effects (“has the effect of X”) without an explicit object.
With a three-word alliteration, this kind of ellipsis is almost inevitable and entirely typical. (Especially since only a single letter is actually in question and the resulting reading is coherent.) But of course, it's just a theory, too
As far as I can tell though, MHG "pine" had a limited application. Something like intense suffering in a religious context? Eschatological suffering
In modern Dutch, "pijn" can be any kind of pain, just like the English word. But German has other words for that.
I'm certainly no expert on the matter but my feeling is that 'pîne' seems a bit anachronistic (too ancient) compared to the rest of the text. This sounds like 12-13th century, not 15th. I'd rather expect 'peyn' here.
Not saying we should rule it out completely, the VM appears to draw from inspirations that significantly pre-date the 15th century. But it still feels odd.
Again though, you typically wouldn't use "pin" for a toothache. Your examples refer to:
- torment of fire
- someone who gave birth without suffering (not sure if this is in a religious context)
- literal torture of suspects
- distress, trouble...
- struggle of battle
- it causes great distress/torture to the devil when...
Note the prevalence of the forms "pin" or "pine". "Pinen" is grammatical, but rare in comparison.
(17-12-2025, 02:39 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again though, you typically wouldn't use "pin" for a toothache. Your examples refer to:
- torment of fire
- someone who gave birth without suffering (not sure if this is in a religious context)
- literal torture of suspects
- distress, trouble...
- struggle of battle
- it causes great distress/torture to the devil when...
Note the prevalence of the forms "pin" or "pine". "Pinen" is grammatical, but rare in comparison.
I don't understand this objection?? I have merely demonstrated that it is not only used in a spiritual sense, but in various contexts and in the 15th century. I don't think I need to do more than that. It is a coherent translation option, it makes some sense, the letters match except for one, and what reasonable words would you expect in a marginal note after the word "
Poxleber"

????
But okay, here sources:
Full text of "Drei Koelner Schwankbuecher Aus Dem XVten Jahrhundert"
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
„… sind zu faul,
zu ‘pinen’; sie trinken lieber einen guten Schluck.“ here, however, as toiling, struggling, tormenting oneself
and
Neidhart-Fuchs-Druck (Augsburg, um 1495): „Hie schenckt Neithart wein vnd ließ
pinen under die pauren.“
(14-12-2025, 07:38 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That would make sense with ‘vmen’ actually pronounced ‘v'men’ “vomen” (from one) Feminine ‘vonere’ (from one).
Same as ‘v'bren’ pronounced (vebren)
(burn).
Very complicated for non-Alemannic speakers.
But I basically assume the VM is based on the Bavarian dialect, but how exactly is it there? I know it's similar. 200 km doesn't make much difference.
Let's assume that the third word in the first row (.....fer) is "rotpfer[d]" or "rotepfer[d]" . So, as much as I understand, we can interpret this, as: "poxleber von einem rotepferd", meaning in English "goat liver from/of a red horse". I understand that the correct version must be "roten pferd", but I think, it isn't necessary if "rote pferd" was used as one combined word "rotepferd", similarly to "poxleber".
Why - "rotepfer[d]"?
1. I think the first letter can be "r" written in style of the "bird-glyph".
2. The second letter at the first look looks like "v/u", but I see something at the upper part that looks like the faded top of the letter "o".
3. The third letter looks like either clumsy "t", or corrected "e/c", or the combination "te", where "t" and "e" are merged in one on some reason, perhaps just accidentally layered one to another.
In all these conclusions, though, I don't understand how exactly "POX leber" (goat liver) can relate to "red horse". Or is this whole phrase such a sophisticated curse?