Again, the sentence has to make sense.
With the word "aller", I'm sure everyone agrees on what it means and that it is written correctly.
Here too, "aller" is connected to the first word. The interesting thing is that "aller" does not leave too many possibilities open.
This is where German comes into its own.
What does the first word mean?
In application, one could say, "das beste aller Zeiten" "the best of all times".
" der schlechteste Witz aller Zeiten" "the worst of all jokes"
There are not many words that can go directly with "aller" in this sentence order.
What should "mallier" mean, and how does it relate to "aller".
There are not many ways in which a term can be directly in line with all, such as, "mutter aller Dinge" "mother of all things".
Translated with You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (free version)
(06-05-2021, 10:39 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again, the sentence has to make sense.
With the word "aller", I'm sure everyone agrees on what it means and that it is written correctly.
Here too, "aller" is connected to the first word. The interesting thing is that "aller" does not leave too many possibilities open.
Technically, the word "aller" could be German, French, Norman, Occitan, Dutch, Norwegian, Frisian, Scots, Welsh, and probably a few other European languages.
It could also be an unusual spelling of Spanish "ayer".
I'm not saying it has to be any of those things. But we may consider all of the possibilities.
(06-05-2021, 10:53 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It cannot be a misshapen "o" (mollier) unless it is a significant mistake. It has a very clear serif. The letter "u" or "a" often had a serif, but never "o". The letter "u" would be strange also, since it would not be covered on the top. So, a proposal of "u" or "o" would have to be a spelling mistake rather than a misshapen letter.
Fair enough. Thank you for clearing up that point.
Perhaps it is some kind of obscure pun or play on words? Like someone's name was "Mal..." something, and the writer deliberately transformed "mulier"/"molier" into "mallier" as a pun?
Or...aha...perhaps it is a play on words to mean "bad woman"/"evil woman"/"ill woman" in a Romance language:
Instead of writing "mullier mal" or "mal de mullier", write the words together as "mallier" as a play on words.
Okay... here's a question I don't think has been discussed on the thread (unless I have forgotten)...
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the first word is mallier and the second one is aller/allar or something like that. Don't worry about the small letters, only look at the ones with ascenders.
The "ll" in "mallier" is written the same way the Gothic "l" letters are written on 116v (inconsistent from one to the next but still a common way to write them with a loop).
The pair of ll in "aller/allar" is written the same way (Gothic ell with somewhat angular loop) but smaller (almost half as tall). Why?
This is not something I see in manuscripts and even when people are switching to a rougher cursive note style, they don't usually cut the height of the ascenders by such a significant amount. Then the next one is tall again, to match the first "ll", and the "h" in "hoc/hov" or whatever the next word is, is also full height.
What is up (or down) with that second word? This dramatic reduction in the height of ascenders is unusual.
In the past I was in favor of a "mulier" reading, but now I think something related to painting is more likely. Why? Well, this text is in the "hot zone" for color annotations.
See You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., the color red only appears in Herbal A, and color annotations are absent from B as well.
If the color annotations are someone communicating with the painter in this same little part of the MS, and we have a word in the marginalia that could be read as relating to painting, then I'd think it's reasonable to lean more heavily on this interpretation.
(06-05-2021, 11:10 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Okay... here's a question I don't think has been discussed on the thread (unless I have forgotten)...
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the first word is mallier and the second one is aller/allar or something like that. Don't worry about the small letters, only look at the ones with ascenders.
The "ll" in "mallier" is written the same way the Gothic "l" letters are written on 116v (inconsistent from one to the next but still a common way to write them with a loop).
The pair of ll in "aller/allar" is written the same way (Gothic ell with somewhat angular loop) but smaller (almost half as tall). Why?
This is not something I see in manuscripts and even when people are switching to a rougher cursive note style, they don't usually cut the height of the ascenders by such a significant amount. Then the next one is tall again, to match the first "ll", and the "h" in "hoc/hov" or whatever the next word is, is also full height.
What is up (or down) with that second word? This dramatic reduction in the height of ascenders is unusual.
Just to clarify something, and setting aside the "a" in "mallier"...you are certain that is "lli" and not "lh" as in "malher", correct? I just want to confirm this and make sure of the point for certain.
(06-05-2021, 11:26 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the past I was in favor of a "mulier" reading, but now I think something related to painting is more likely. Why? Well, this text is in the "hot zone" for color annotations.
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the color red only appears in Herbal A, and color annotations are absent from B as well.
If the color annotations are someone communicating with the painter in this same little part of the MS, and we have a word in the marginalia that could be read as relating to painting, then I'd think it's reasonable to lean more heavily on this interpretation.
So a word akin to German "Maler", then? Is there a medieval dialect in which a form of such a word might have been written as "mallier"?
(06-05-2021, 11:10 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Okay... here's a question I don't think has been discussed on the thread (unless I have forgotten)...
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the first word is mallier and the second one is aller/allar or something like that. Don't worry about the small letters, only look at the ones with ascenders.
The "ll" in "mallier" is written the same way the Gothic "l" letters are written on 116v (inconsistent from one to the next but still a common way to write them with a loop).
The pair of ll in "aller/allar" is written the same way (Gothic ell with somewhat angular loop) but smaller (almost half as tall). Why?
This is not something I see in manuscripts and even when people are switching to a rougher cursive note style, they don't usually cut the height of the ascenders by such a significant amount. Then the next one is tall again, to match the first "ll", and the "h" in "hoc/hov" or whatever the next word is, is also full height.
What is up (or down) with that second word? This dramatic reduction in the height of ascenders is unusual.
If you are suggesting or arguing for a different letter than "ll" due to this dramatic height difference in the ascenders, there is always the possibility of "adder" (as in a snake) rather than "aller".
(06-05-2021, 11:28 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Just to clarify something, and setting aside the "a" in "mallier"...you are certain that is "lli" and not "lh" as in "malher", correct? I just want to confirm this and make sure of the point for certain.
Yes. I am 95% certain. I am not certain about very many things in the VMS, but I don't think I've ever seen "h" written like that in any script that is somewhat or mostly similar to this style of script. ONE TIME (about two years ago) I thought I had found one (it jumped out at me) and when I looked closely, it turned out to be "li" by context.
They usually wrote h with a scoop or a curve (as on 116v). In modern times this might be an "h". I can't prove it's not an "h", I can only say after sampling more than 2,000 letters "l" and "h" I've never seen "h" written like this.
Also, as further justification for the choice, this scribe writes 'i" with a long serif. It's not easy to see in this small faint note on 17r, but there is a leading serif (approach stroke) on the "i" that would be consistent with the samples of "i" I posted previously (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).