17-09-2018, 02:28 PM
17-09-2018, 03:44 PM
(17-09-2018, 01:12 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."aller" confuses me. Did the plural form for nominative "aller" ever existed instead of "allen", at least, in rare cases? Could it be Komparativ "aller"?
If it's "aller" as in "every" , I think the only plural you can have is Genitive. This is a very frequent form and even still has a limited existence in modern Dutch. Comparative form for "all" is impossible, as far as I know. You can't have "more every". Unless it's from some other meaning of "all" or "al".
Still there is a problem if you want aller to be an adjective with mallier as noun, because Germanic languages will have a very strong tendency to put the noun second. Something like "aller mallier" would make much more sense word-order wise.
17-09-2018, 04:05 PM
(!) on the other hand, if we enter the realm of Germanic-Romance mix language again, "aller" as genitive plural would make an awful lot of sense.
The first word, however you want to transcribe it, looks like it could be a Romance comparative or superlative form meaning "better" or "best". Especially the superlative would be expected frequently before "aller", i.e. "the best of all [plural noun]".
French meilleur, Old French was meillor from Latin form melior
Galician mellor
Portuguese melhor, Old Portuguese mellor
The first word, however you want to transcribe it, looks like it could be a Romance comparative or superlative form meaning "better" or "best". Especially the superlative would be expected frequently before "aller", i.e. "the best of all [plural noun]".
French meilleur, Old French was meillor from Latin form melior
Galician mellor
Portuguese melhor, Old Portuguese mellor
17-09-2018, 04:58 PM
So you mean that "besser aller" is a correct word combination in German?
Then, if "he.." is "her" which in some dialects also means "hier", the sentence beginning will be: "The better of all (they) shine here / is visible here......" If "he.." is "hec" (haec) it will be: "The better of all shine/ is visible those...." The first variant seems to be better.
Actually, as one of my suppositions was that the scribe was not native German. Maybe, he wrote some Latin phrase and just substituted some Latin words with German, therefore "aller" is next to the noun. But it is probably a weak guess ?
Then, if "he.." is "her" which in some dialects also means "hier", the sentence beginning will be: "The better of all (they) shine here / is visible here......" If "he.." is "hec" (haec) it will be: "The better of all shine/ is visible those...." The first variant seems to be better.
Actually, as one of my suppositions was that the scribe was not native German. Maybe, he wrote some Latin phrase and just substituted some Latin words with German, therefore "aller" is next to the noun. But it is probably a weak guess ?
17-09-2018, 05:17 PM
17-09-2018, 05:18 PM
This should be asked to a native speaker, based on my feeling "besser aller" is awkward. At least in modern languages I'd expect a superlative.
The thing is that in Romance languages the superlative and comparative often take the same form (assuming that the definite article for the superlative can be dropped in quick writing).
The thing is that in Romance languages the superlative and comparative often take the same form (assuming that the definite article for the superlative can be dropped in quick writing).
17-09-2018, 08:12 PM
MarcoP Wrote:This looks like pure coincidence, yet I am curious. Does anyone know what "mallior" means in Swedish?
Hi MarcoP,
I asked to a Swedish friend.
He said to me it's not pure swedish.
In fact, it's another scandinavian language ; it's icelandic.
I have to search the accurate dictionnary to understand this word (mallior)
18-09-2018, 12:29 AM
(17-09-2018, 08:12 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.MarcoP Wrote:This looks like pure coincidence, yet I am curious. Does anyone know what "mallior" means in Swedish?
Hi MarcoP,
I asked to a Swedish friend.
He said to me it's not pure swedish.
In fact, it's another scandinavian language ; it's icelandic.
I have to search the accurate dictionnary to understand this word (mallior)
You will find many examples of it if you use modern spelling "maljor". Here is an example which shows the word and also the metal embellishments (not as fancy as they used to be) on folkdräkter/folkedragter (folk dress, the traditional clothing):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"Just nu googlar jag livstycken, yllebroderi och maljor..."
Translation: Just now I Googled bodices/vests, wool-embroidery and "maljor" (the metal embellishments)..."
I can read Scandinavian without looking at a dictionary as long as it's not too technical.
In Spanish, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." refers to various kinds of metal embellishments used on belts, neck jewelry, clothing, and leather, and "mallior" appears to be the medieval spelling for the Scandinavian "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." for similar kinds of metal embellishments.
18-09-2018, 12:44 AM
I'm leaning toward the marginalia saying "mallier" rather than "mallior" (although it is hard to be certain).
If "mallier" is a verb (as in måla/male "paint" verb), then for "aller" to follow it makes grammatical sense ("paint all the")
...but it would be strange for "male" (paint) to have that extra "i" added. An "i" in there is more French than Scandinavian (and doesn't make much sense in French or Norman, either) UNLESS it's meant to be malerier (the paintings), then it might be a noun in Norse BUT then it would be grammatically weird for it to be followed by aller (all of the).
If "mallier" is a verb (as in måla/male "paint" verb), then for "aller" to follow it makes grammatical sense ("paint all the")
...but it would be strange for "male" (paint) to have that extra "i" added. An "i" in there is more French than Scandinavian (and doesn't make much sense in French or Norman, either) UNLESS it's meant to be malerier (the paintings), then it might be a noun in Norse BUT then it would be grammatically weird for it to be followed by aller (all of the).
04-10-2018, 05:30 AM
I hope all will forgive if this has been treated before. I've read 6 of the 13 pages of these posts and found no mention of Pelling in them, though so far as I know his was the first effort to analyse this piece of marginalia, to render some of the words in the way they are still rendered and so on.
My question has nothing to do with whether or not his rendering is correct. It is simply this:
If, for argument's sake, his rendering WERE accepted, then would his 'light/sunlight' be correctly the sentence's subject, or its object?
Since not everyone may have a copy of Pelling's book, Curse of the Voynich (2006). I'll quote the bit from page 25 in full.
Pelling wrote (p.25)
Looking more closely at the first word, there's a fine horizontal bar through the (later alteration) 'a', indicating that its second letter could well have originally been 'e' - making the whole word probably "meilhor" (presumably in a Romance language, derived from the Latin melior as in 'ameliorate'). But this would make its third letter a looped Germanic "l": which in turn would make the second word look like the French verb 'aller' to go. So it probably originally read "meilhor aller".. - like the start of a real sentence in some kind of hybrid Romance language.
[Notes - by me]. Nick is mistaken in seeing the script's 'l' as peculiarly Germanic. It's just a form of Gothic script and occurs in France and in England and elsewhere. Also, his use of 'hybrid' implies belief that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was an accepted set of discrete Romance languages, whereas that impression is only true for the literate classes (to some extent) and very largely today a result of post-eighteenth century efforts to create an official standard in every one of the officially used vernaculars. Medieval dialects were spoken languages, few used by the literate classes and they actually formed a continuum across the geographic areas - which is why there is debate over whether the Voynich month-names are Judeo-Catalan, or Occitan etc. and why e.g. even today, English dialects include ones where e.g. 'done' is always used where standard English demands 'did'. For all we know, the Voynich marginalia represent notes added to the manuscript from information given by non-literate persons whose dialect isn't straight 'Occitan' or 'Catalan' or 'French' according to modern classificiation..... For all we know.
But back to Nick, who continued:
It should be no surprise that 'meilhor' also means 'better' in Occitan, while 'aller' in Occitan means much the same as in modern French; and the same third word appears to be the Occitan lutz, meaning 'light' or 'sunlight', but where the 't' and the 'z' have been (faultily) joined together
[Note...Nick adds 'by a later owner' which I think unproven]....
In the Beinecke library scans, the fourth word (which starts with a curious letter) looks like kou, while the subsequent words fade right away (despite the apparent emendation). It seems that the whole line was therefore originally a complete Occitan sentence starting with "meilhor aller lutz (kou)..." meaning mystifyingly something like "to run light better"...
Nick's erroneous belief that looped l and h (that's small L and small H) in this marginalia show some character peculiarly German affects the rest of his writing on p.25, as done a curious idea that a manuscript had to travel to foreign parts to acquire marginalia in a foreign hand. We have English manuscripts even in England where marginalia show the hands and sometimes the languages) of at least four or five different countries, but the assumption is usually that the writers came to libraries.
But that's not an issue of interest at present. The one that is, is the question I posed before, namely:
IF, for argument's sake, we take Pelling's Occitan rendering as granted, then would 'lutz' be the grammatical subject or the object of that sentence?
My question has nothing to do with whether or not his rendering is correct. It is simply this:
If, for argument's sake, his rendering WERE accepted, then would his 'light/sunlight' be correctly the sentence's subject, or its object?
Since not everyone may have a copy of Pelling's book, Curse of the Voynich (2006). I'll quote the bit from page 25 in full.
Pelling wrote (p.25)
Looking more closely at the first word, there's a fine horizontal bar through the (later alteration) 'a', indicating that its second letter could well have originally been 'e' - making the whole word probably "meilhor" (presumably in a Romance language, derived from the Latin melior as in 'ameliorate'). But this would make its third letter a looped Germanic "l": which in turn would make the second word look like the French verb 'aller' to go. So it probably originally read "meilhor aller".. - like the start of a real sentence in some kind of hybrid Romance language.
[Notes - by me]. Nick is mistaken in seeing the script's 'l' as peculiarly Germanic. It's just a form of Gothic script and occurs in France and in England and elsewhere. Also, his use of 'hybrid' implies belief that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was an accepted set of discrete Romance languages, whereas that impression is only true for the literate classes (to some extent) and very largely today a result of post-eighteenth century efforts to create an official standard in every one of the officially used vernaculars. Medieval dialects were spoken languages, few used by the literate classes and they actually formed a continuum across the geographic areas - which is why there is debate over whether the Voynich month-names are Judeo-Catalan, or Occitan etc. and why e.g. even today, English dialects include ones where e.g. 'done' is always used where standard English demands 'did'. For all we know, the Voynich marginalia represent notes added to the manuscript from information given by non-literate persons whose dialect isn't straight 'Occitan' or 'Catalan' or 'French' according to modern classificiation..... For all we know.
But back to Nick, who continued:
It should be no surprise that 'meilhor' also means 'better' in Occitan, while 'aller' in Occitan means much the same as in modern French; and the same third word appears to be the Occitan lutz, meaning 'light' or 'sunlight', but where the 't' and the 'z' have been (faultily) joined together
[Note...Nick adds 'by a later owner' which I think unproven]....
In the Beinecke library scans, the fourth word (which starts with a curious letter) looks like kou, while the subsequent words fade right away (despite the apparent emendation). It seems that the whole line was therefore originally a complete Occitan sentence starting with "meilhor aller lutz (kou)..." meaning mystifyingly something like "to run light better"...
Nick's erroneous belief that looped l and h (that's small L and small H) in this marginalia show some character peculiarly German affects the rest of his writing on p.25, as done a curious idea that a manuscript had to travel to foreign parts to acquire marginalia in a foreign hand. We have English manuscripts even in England where marginalia show the hands and sometimes the languages) of at least four or five different countries, but the assumption is usually that the writers came to libraries.
But that's not an issue of interest at present. The one that is, is the question I posed before, namely:
IF, for argument's sake, we take Pelling's Occitan rendering as granted, then would 'lutz' be the grammatical subject or the object of that sentence?