Quote: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.
Whatever the author's motivation to depict these specific merlons, he must have been aware of their existence, to begin with.
Quote:I do believe that this is just a coincidence but it seems curious enough to highlight.
In the right image we have not
aror sheey, but rather
ar as sheey. The exact string
aror sheey is, to my knowledge, used only in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and f116v.
Quote:In the right image we have not aror sheey, but rather ar as sheey.
To the point,
ar as, or
as ar (rather
ar ar) without
sheey are appeared in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , as well, on the f84r, f86v4 and f31v.
aror without
sheey is on the folios: f79r, f79v, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and f106r.
The term "so nim gaf mich" on page You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is often interpreted as "so nim geismi[l]ch" meaning "... take goats milk". What other interpretations are known for this phrase?
I wonder if "gaf" could be a short form for the german word "gaffen" (english: to peer at sth.). In this case it is not necessary to interpret the last word as "milch" with a "l" missing. The whole phrase could be interpreted as "so nim. gaf mich." meaning "Take me. Stare at me."
Hey Torsten - a big thread where we discussed these words is You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. I am not sure which pages exactly, so some searching may be necessary, but I remember we considered several possibilities: gaf, gas, geis, etc.
EDIT) It seems we start the discussion on page 2
(24-11-2016, 02:15 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Threads merged.
Thanks Koen - I hesitated to merge them because I wasn't sure if I should put Torsten's post in the "interpretations by Anton Alipov" thread
(18-07-2016, 12:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.About consistency in glyph shapes: has it been mentioned that both the -e- and the -n in valden look different than those in ubren? The -n could possibly be explained by an end-line flourish. I can't find an explanation for the -e-shape in walden though.
The inconsistency in the "n" chars is not unusual. Sometimes the last "n" will have a flourish, sometimes not.
But the difference in the "e" letters is harder to explain. The second one is unambiguously an "e". The first one might be an "e", they were sometimes written that way when this style of script was common, but if that's a longer upstroke (if there's more of it under that blob), it might be an abbreviation for "er", in which case the word could be "valdern" or "valsern".
Either way, it's fractured (non-native-sounding) sort-of-German. If it were German blended with Norse, one might read it as "choose over".
Anton has made some important points, imo.
One obvious possibility with regard to that fairly low-brow language is that the later-come writer of this marginalia considered himself socially or culturally 'better' than the person(s) from whom it had been acquired. Or perhaps it was just pure chagrin at not being able to understand anything in the ms.
Would the English equivalent not be something like "dam' bullshit" ? (I add 'damned' because of the protective crosses inserted into the marginalia on f.116v.