Very interesting, Anton. I'd also like to hear the native speakers' opinion about your proposals.
One thing though. Wouldn't it be weird to use a children's form of a word, a euphemism, in such a vulgar context?
(20-07-2016, 09:53 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wouldn't it be weird to use a children's form of a word, a euphemism, in such a vulgar context?
I don't know, this is the realm where only an expert or a native speaker can comment. In Russian we have "жопа" (zhopa) to designate this part of the body, which is the most common vulgar term for that to be used between adults, while "попа" (popa) is the child's variant which is not considered vulgar. Hence "жопа" or other vulgar variants are not used when speaking with children, but "попа" is used instead. However, "попа" is perfectly OK to be used between adults, especially when you don't want to sound too rude. Wishing somebody to "go to ass", you could say "go to popa!" instead of "go to zhopa!"
Besides, the dictionaries are generally limited and may not catch all uses. E.g. "Misch" might have been not only for use with children.
(20-07-2016, 05:38 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:.I see your point about the spoken/written distinction. In Middle High German, however, words were written exactly as you spoke them. If your dialect says "gas" instead of "Geis" or "Pock" instead of "Bock", then you write those forms. If your dialect says "mich" then you write "mich".
OK, that's important. But anyway written examples would be confirmative, without them "mi(l)ch" is just a working hypothesis.
In the meantime I reviewed the "gasmich" in the light of the suggestion (which I share) that there is no space, as well as your and Helmut's approach to look for a single fitting word. Indeed, a single fitting word would be better than assuming the non-existing space.
And I think I have breaking news! 
... [deleted for brevity]
One argument against the ass is that "Misch" for "ass" is Northern, while, as I understand, "gas" for "goose" is Southern?!
The word
gas can also be northern (for goose). In the 15th century, the southern Scandinavians inhabited portions along the coast west into Normandy, east into eastern Europe, and parts of Saxony, and gås meant goose, with the accent somewhat erratically applied (taking on several different shapes depending on the scribe). The Lombards (in what we now call Lombardy and northern Italy) may also have used gas/gås for goose at the time, since they were also southern Scandinavians (I haven't had time to double-check whether the Lombards used gås and it's difficult to do so because they spoke a blend of Germanic and Italic by that time).
(20-07-2016, 05:38 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, that's important. But anyway written examples would be confirmative, without them "mi(l)ch" is just a working hypothesis.
That's fair. I don't know any MHG texts that have "mich" for "Milch" but will definitely look. In the meantime, it will remain a working hypothesis.
Quote:So "gas" can be "goose", or it can be a domestic goat. My vote is for goose: first, because this seems to be a more widespread option, second because we already have "pox" in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (no matter if it relates to goat or to God, it ultimately comes from the goat), so why use "gas" to designate a goat instead of "pox" (unless one wants to get some milk from it, of course)? But let's not touch the choice between the two. For now, it's sufficient to understand that "gas" is a domestic animal.
That is a good point - only a "Geis" can produce "Milch". I didn't even realize that a "Pock" couldn't!
Quote:Der waggelt met der Maul wie en Gans-arsch
"He wags his tongue like a goose's Arsch" = He talks a lot.
It's an interesting theory! I won't comment because I think Helmut and other native speakers are more qualified. It is definitely not impossible - Goethe himself wrote "leck mich am Arsch". Personally I still side with "milch" because it fits semantically, grammatically, and dialectally, but who knows.
I don't remember any German stories involving the backside of the goose, but maybe another Germanicist does.
Quote:One argument against the ass is that "Misch" for "ass" is Northern, while, as I understand, "gas" for "goose" is Southern?!
I'm sorry if I was ambiguous about this: Helmut said that "gas" for "geis" (goat) is southern, but "gas" for "gans" (goose) can be anywhere (as -JKP- mentioned).
What era are we looking at for these interpretations? Is this XV, XVI, XVII colloquialisms? And are they all from the same era?
Quote: So "gasmich" in the regions somewhere in Luxembourg
Interesting you fix on this location Anton. Remember that there are hints that the zodiac illustrations derived from this area, so this could be another angle to triangulate the creation location.
Quote:What era are we looking at for these interpretations? Is this XV, XVI, XVII colloquialisms? And are they all from the same era?
XV c. Mind that
aror sheey is there in the same line.
Quote:Remember that there are hints that the zodiac illustrations derived from this area, so this could be another angle to triangulate the creation location.
Yes I also thought about it. On the other hand we have those southern mellons (if only indeed European they are). But the MS may have been written by a man who traveled a lot. Indeed, in that era widely educated men often travelled a lot (as they do today
).
But the MS may have been written by a man who traveled a lot.
Reminds me of Baresch' "learned traveler from Egypt" idea. Probably not too far from the truth
Quote:On the other hand we have those southern mellons
I have never been convinced by Pelling's arguments here - I would suggest that, given the general amibguity of illustrations in this manuscript, the swallowtops are simply a generic illustration preference of the illustrator. After all, he appears to have no reason to be so specific about this little detail.
I have no idea what the top object on 116v should represent, and I also don't know what the object held on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. represents, but their shapes are vaguely similar. The following clip puts them next to each other.
[
attachment=427]
I do believe that this is just a coincidence but it seems curious enough to highlight.
It is just barely possible that the word underlined in green could have been tentatively translated by a non-reader of Voynichese as 'poxleber'.
(24-07-2016, 06:42 AM)david Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:On the other hand we have those southern mellons
I have never been convinced by Pelling's arguments here - I would suggest that, given the general amibguity of illustrations in this manuscript, the swallowtops are simply a generic illustration preference of the illustrator. After all, he appears to have no reason to be so specific about this little detail.
Swallowtail merlons were far from generic in the 14th and 15th centuries. They were a very strident political statement, deliberately setting apart the Ghibellines from the Guelphs (Holy Roman Empire supporters versus Papists).
As an example, look at the recent furor over the the southern states' rebel flags. The swallowtail merlons were almost as divisive and socially explosive as those.