As a side note, I just discovered that the rating of this thread is one star.
Indeed, it is interesting whether lucƺ or lucˉƺ abbreviations existed in German, French or Spanish late medieval texts. It would be nice to find such precedents. I guess observation of traditions in abbreviations of a certain place and time is very important. For now I consider it a Latin abbreviated word.
JKP wrote: “The "z" shape is a very common Latin scribal abbreviation usually used at the ends of words. It stands for "-em" most of the time, but it can represent homonyms of "-em" as well (what it expands into depends partly on the language and partly on context).” It is true, but not quite.
I looked through a few Latin texts with retained abbreviations. These texts are mostly of the second part of 15 – beginning of 16 centuries.
Lucƺ – often really means lucem or lucum, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (using "4" at the end), in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., for example, eltˉƺ substitutes the word elementum.
Notably that the horizontal bar in most cases means the dropped letter “n”, above a last letter – often “m” (coˉcretus- concretus, postoˉs – positionis, nˉ - non, luceˉ - lucem, etc.)
But ƺ stands not only for –um, -em, or, even –m. It can be –et, -it or –ed. For example, sƺ stands for sed, scƺ – for scit, and so on.What is more, ƺ was used as –um and –et in the same text, but in different words. Usually it could be understood due to a sense of a text and construction of a sentence. Lucƺ is not an exclusion, it can mean You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as much as lucem or lucum. I’m not sure that the same shortened word can be used for two different forms of a real word in the same text. I think scribes usually chose an abbreviation for one of them. Probably, it depends on local traditions and own habits of scribes.
Logically, the horizontal bar in lucˉƺ may mean the dropped “n”, so it can be the verb lucent (3th person, present, plural). Unfortunately, I couldn’t find such an exact match in Latin texts, they must be studied more, of course.
We may assume that it can be some highly abbreviated word similarly to eltˉƺ but I think it is less possible as such abbreviations were used in texts where that word was mentioned in a full form or in a more understandable abbreviation (like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), at least, a few times. From the other side, the scribe of the marginalia could be unworried in this issue if he wrote it only for himself and knew its meaning.
Links (Latin texts with abbreviations):
1) lucet - lucz
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
2) licet - licz
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
3) scit - scz
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
P. S. Actually I tried to find Latin abbreviations lucz for the words lucum or lucem in Latin texts. Strangely but I couldn't find either. Usually scribes use the forms lucū and lucȇ, though quite often use ƺ as -um, -em and -m in another words.
JKP, could you give a link to the full page the fragment of which you demonstrated (with the lucz-word)?
(15-09-2018, 03:08 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But ƺ stands not only for –um, -em, or, even –m. It can be –et, -it or –ed. For example, sƺ stands for sed, scƺ – for scit, and so on.What is more, ƺ was used as –um and –et in the same text, but in different words. Usually it could be understood due to a sense of a text and construction of a sentence. Lucƺ is not an exclusion, it can mean You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as much as lucem or lucum. I’m not sure that the same shortened word can be used for two different forms of a real word in the same text. I think scribes usually chose an abbreviation for one of them. Probably, it depends on local traditions and own habits of scribes.
Logically, the horizontal bar in lucˉƺ may mean the dropped “n”, so it can be the verb lucent (3th person, present, plural).
Thank you, Searcher! Well researched and clearly presented!
"lucent" now seems to me an excellent candidate, though interpreting the whole sentence remains an apparently impossible challenge.
MarcoP wrote:
Quote:"lucent" now seems to me an excellent candidate, though interpreting the whole sentence remains an apparently impossible challenge.
I agree, it is still obscure. First of all, I can't understand how "mallier aller" can fit in with "lucent". As for the rest, I can assume (for the nth time):
1. that the next word after lucz begins with "he.", the last faded letter can be "r", "c" or "n". So, to the word "her", as a possibility, I would add "hec" (a variant of Latin "haec" - those (nominative, neuter, plural). As well, I accept the idea about the abbreviation "her" for the word "herba/-ae/-is"
2. that the third "word" is really not one word, but two: " p.. illuminis", "p.." can be an abbreviation, something like "pō", [font=Arial]"pī"or "[/font]ṕp", or so, meaning "populis" or "pro", or "prae". ("pro illuminis, prae illuminis, populis illuminis/populi illumini).
[
attachment=2355]
(15-09-2018, 03:08 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I looked through a few Latin texts with retained abbreviations. These texts are mostly of the second part of 15 – beginning of 16 centuries.
Lucƺ – often really means lucem or lucum, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (using "4" at the end), in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., for example, eltˉƺ substitutes the word elementum.
Yes. This is what I have repeatedly said (on several threads, including the Sozomeno thread), that it is usually -em, but can also be -um, and I also gave
"lucum" as one of the valid interpretations for this example.
-------------
Quote:Notably that the horizontal bar in most cases means the dropped letter “n”, above a last letter – often “m” (coˉcretus- concretus, postoˉs – positionis, nˉ - non, luceˉ - lucem, etc.)
Yes, I have repeatedly said this as well, both on the forum, and on my blogs. I've said it so often I was genuinely worried people might be tired of hearing it.
---------------
Quote:But ƺ stands not only for –um, -em, or, even –m. It can be –et, -it or –ed. For example, sƺ stands for sed, scƺ – for scit, and so on.What is more, ƺ was used as –um and –et in the same text, but in different words. Usually it could be understood due to a sense of a text and construction of a sentence. Lucƺ is not an exclusion, it can mean You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as much as lucem or lucum. I’m not sure that the same shortened word can be used for two different forms of a real word in the same text. I think scribes usually chose an abbreviation for one of them. Probably, it depends on local traditions and own habits of scribes.
Yes, agreed. There are the more common interpretations, but also individual ones—how it is expanded is known by context (which I've also said about 50 times).
At least we agree. 
.
Don't mind me, Searcher, your post is a good one. I'm just feeling a bit discouraged. I've written about the "Item" abbreviation about 100 times, maybe more, and posted many examples and then I find out on Nick's blog that the message somehow isn't getting across to the Voynich community. The same seems to be true about many of the other Latin abbreviations I've blogged about, using many examples. I don't know how to make it clearer, plainer. I've posted about the expansion of the macron for n/m over and over, and yet it still doesn't seem to have registered. I've posted about the [font=Eva]m and g[font=Arial] Latin [/font]abbreviations dozens and dozens of times and it's only very recently that the message seems to have been heard.
I almost forgot, you asked about the abbreviation "ƺ" in other languages besides Latin. It's particularly common in medieval Italian. If you look at the Sozomeno thread, you can see in his notebook that he uses it very frequently and this is true of vernacular Italian manuscripts, as well.[/font]
I have a new idea.
One of the questions for You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. has been whether it is "mal
lier" or "mal
her". I remember that I argued against "malher" because the supposed "h" is not like it is elsewhere in the marginalia, and especially opposed to the "h" in the subsequent "he*", where the trace of the characteristic descender is visible.
Now, the remark by Searcher that "mallier aller" still does not fit suddenly made me think of whether it really needs to.
Looking attentively, one can see that the letters in "mallier aller" are a bit smaller, and its baseline is a bit lower.
So these may be two different and independent phrases, even put down by two different people. In that case, mallier can be "malher" or "mal her".
JKP,
I was surprised that I can't find the abbreviation "lucz" for the word "lucum". In the most cases, it stands for "lucet". Do you know any examples where it substitutes the word "lucum"? It is really interesting to observate different traditions of abbreviations in different regions and times. Maybe it is wrong but I think we still must give to usual meanings of a certain abbreviations a fair show, no matter how senseless they seem in the VMs marginalia.
(15-09-2018, 11:57 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have a new idea.
One of the questions for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has been whether it is "mallier" or "malher". I remember that I argued against "malher" because the supposed "h" is not like it is elsewhere in the marginalia, and especially opposed to the "h" in the subsequent "he*", where the trace of the characteristic descender is visible.
Now, the remark by Searcher that "mallier aller" still does not fit suddenly made me think of whether it really needs to.
Looking attentively, one can see that the letters in "mallier aller" are a bit smaller, and its baseline is a bit lower.
So these may be two different and independent phrases, even put down by two different people. In that case, mallier can be "malher" or "mal her".
I agree with you, Anton.
I don't think it's malher. I'm pretty sure this is the same handwriting as 116r and he simply does not write "h" that way, but he does write ell that way and does so with loops at many different angles.
But as for it being two different phrases... I don't know. It might be. It might not. So hard to tell. The handwriting on 116v also has a very patchy look to it, some of the letters small, some large. Very uneven.
Interesting idea, to consider that they might be separate phrases.
And one more idea, although I won't bet that it's new, maybe it was discussed even above in the thread, I don't remember.
Supposing that marginalia may refer to the contents of a folio, ceteris paribus I would prefer "lux" as the base word form behind the "lucz", just because the plant mnemonically features eyes, and one of the meanings of "lux" is "eyesight".
EDIT: Yes, actually Marco wrote about this a year ago in this very thread. I think it's worth keeping this in mind: "lux" as the foremost option.