(30-04-2021, 01:10 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think that the interpretation "gasmi[l]ch" is the most probable for now, as there is no better explanation
So far I see absolutely no reason for it being most probable, since this reading is just built on pure invention. One voluntarily inserts "l" into mich and argues that "mich" should be read as "milch" when "mich" in itself is a perfectly valid and exceedingly common German word. Should we substitute all "mich" with "milch" in all German texts then? What are the grounds for that? It's really not much different from the susbstitution cipher Voynich solving, where if anything just looks nonsense it is suggested to insert or omit letters, to read the words backwards, and so on.
Everything is possible, e.g. there existed the practice of writing words backwards, or of omitting letters (abbreviation), but there should be a system in the interpretation, not just random picking this explanation and that one, whichever is convenient to "explain" something that does not fit.
As for a better explanation, it's been there for I don't know how long, and it's been discussed in the thread.
As I wrote earlier in the thread, I posted a question on RG to ask if there are examples of consistent spelling "mich" for "milch" in medieval manuscripts, and the only answer I got (from Adreas Kuelzer of the Austrian Academy of Science) is that if "mich" stands for "milch" it should be a simple misspelling. In other words, one would not write "milch" as "mich" intentionally. Now, of course, for a line of three words (as opposed to, say, a folio of three hundred) the probability of such a mistake is close to zero.
The letter that you quote is very interesting in this respect, and if the spelling is really not a typo, but is accurately transferred from the original MS, that would be quite another thing; Franzhausen is Lower Austria (suitable place for the VMS provenance), and if it is shown that such kind of spelling is systematically observed in medieval documents in such and such region (say Lower Austria), that would be a good step forward.
The point that back then they spelled as they pronounced is a weak one, because milk is a very common subject of everyday life, and it is featured in writing I don't know how often. Then please show me examples where "mich" consistently stands for milk, and that would be a very solid point indeed. But seems like there are not that many such examples in existence, or, let's say, I have seen zero of them so far.