(06-05-2021, 03:28 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But (some) Austrians say "gurt" when they mean "gut".
Rene's statement is interesting.
Adding an "r" where you don't see it.
Someone wrote to me.
It is called: Painter of all krutz (herbs) her.... That's as far as I've been able to read.
my answer:
Problem with "krutz" where is the r. The er of painter and aller and her are easy to see. There are 3 r's in this sentence for comparison. Herbs would be possible but where is the "r"?
Normally letters are swallowed and do not simply appear.
Rene's example makes me revive the old discussion.
"..... of all herbs, you full.............."
doesn't look bad.
But in detail, a long hmmmmmmmmm.
I still think the reading malher should be possible. In that case, maybe short for malherba / malherbe?
There is also this one, I don't know what it is (maybe wife) You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(08-05-2021, 12:42 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I still think the reading malher should be possible. In that case, maybe short for malherba / malherbe?
There is also this one, I don't know what it is (maybe wife) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I like the "h" too, to be honest, but all the medieval palaeographers here keep insisting that this is not an "h", and I'm afraid that I must defer to their superior knowledge.
But I don't like giving up the "h" either.
Let me put it this way.
>The PC depends on the number of hearts.
>On the net we have between 50-60 hearts.
I have only one heart. The doctors say it beats too fast.
No, my brain just has a different beat rate.
No, I just think faster than a PC.
But it's probably the blood pressure, they wanted to remove part of my brain because my IQ is higher than my blood pressure.
But actually it's already written in the VM.
In my efforts to interpret the text on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. I have the basic problem of a chronological assignment. Of course, this is directly related to the possibilities of interpretation ( Which language level (e.g. Mhd / Fnhd), which diaclect).
Is it consensus in the discussion that the text was inserted afterwards and not at the same time with creation of the VMS ? Is there an assumed time frame ( for example derived from the typeface ) ?
(08-05-2021, 12:46 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (08-05-2021, 12:42 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I still think the reading malher should be possible. In that case, maybe short for malherba / malherbe?
There is also this one, I don't know what it is (maybe wife) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I like the "h" too, to be honest, but all the medieval palaeographers here keep insisting that this is not an "h", and I'm afraid that I must defer to their superior knowledge.
But I don't like giving up the "h" either.
I certainly defer to superior knowledge too, as me too I see an "h" there, but there is also another thing that has bothered me, but probably just because I am no-expert and I don't so regularly read medieval manuscripts or documents. The thing that bothers me is the "m" with four legs (to my eyes), and I have come to this example of same kind of four legs "m" and they say that the word is "imperpeetum" and that the scribe has written only "imppm". I don't see any initial "i" but maybe it is one of the four legs there? It looks just a bit like the "malhav/malxxx" in the F17r, to my eyes, but surely JKP will shoot me down with this anyway
Your "im" has five lines pointing down and four arches pointing up. The VM "m" has four lines pointing down and three arches. The difference seems pretty clear to me.
(08-05-2021, 10:37 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your "im" has five lines pointing down and four arches pointing up. The VM "m" has four lines pointing down and three arches. The difference seems pretty clear to me.
Maybe it is just me and old my eyes, but I can see four lines touching the ground in both, but the VM does not have the initial arc up, so actually three arches up in VM and four in the imppm version. I thought the missing initial arc in VM was a mistake or it just has faded away. If there was the initial arc as in the imppm, would that change the reading?
(08-05-2021, 08:01 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is it consensus in the discussion that the text was inserted afterwards and not at the same time with creation of the VMS ? Is there an assumed time frame ( for example derived from the typeface ) ?
I don't think there exists such consensus. The "time of creation" of the VMS is something uncertain, I mean that the carbon dating gives the range, setting the earliest point in time, and that's all. The general consensus is that the MS is a 15th century document, judging by writing and imagery styles. This is corroborated by the carbon dating, but even that gives us only a range. Even if it gave us a single year, it still tells nothing of whether it's been a one-time effort (say, the book was written in a year) or an enterprise continuous in time (say, a work by several scribes in succession, like e.g. father, then son etc.).
What's quite certain is that the person(s) who left these marginalia were familiar with the Voynichese, otherwise they would not have used it in line with plain text. That suggests that even if the marginalia postdate the VMS creation, the time difference is not very large (let's say, the lifespan of the scribe).
I do not remember if there has been any analysis done for ascribing the Voynichese portions of the marginalia to one of the VMS scribes. If that's possible, that would be interesting.
Is it consensus in the discussion that the text was inserted afterwards and not at the same time with creation of the VMS ? Is there an assumed time frame ( for example derived from the typeface ) ?
The main corpus of the ms. should be first half of the15th c., no matter if you think, like me, that it is a Gothic script or not, if you take the C14 dating into acount, it should be around 1420, the marginalia with the big loops are late 15th c., let us say around 1480, the quire markings should be about the same time, the foliation is later, I think 17th c.