[Blog Post] Scribes of the Voynich Manuscript

[Aga Tentakulus]

Why something is more common in Currier A than in Currier B. This could provide a simple explanation.
The first thing to do is to forget the grammar. German grammar has only existed since about 1890.
Now the dialects could meet and explain the differences in this way. That would be a simple solution.
But I'm not thinking directly of the dialect, but rather of the spelling.
It was my decision whether to write Kaffee with K or C (Caffee). To the ear, it remains the same. It's the same with "ain, ein".
When you speak it, there is no E in the word "Bein". Bain
Now the spelling is up to the person what they prefer to use. D or T, C or K, i or Y, etc.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

[-JKP-]

The grammar for 15th-century German isn't that much different from modern grammar. It's readable once you get used to the old letter styles and the abbreviations. There are lots of dialects, but that is more a difference in spelling and vocabulary than grammar.

[Aga Tentakulus]

It's about the spelling.
But now I have to ask Helmut first. How do I spell words with a "K" like cake or cheese? Rather with the hard K or like us in the South with a soft C.
The Chuchichäschtli, Küchenkästlein is not a coincidence.
You could say that one is in Germany and the other in Switzerland. But a few hundred years ago we were both in the Duchy of Swabia. Helmut in the north and I in the south.
Konstanze is roughly in the middle. Or should I write Constance, Constanze ?
It's not the grammar as such, it's more the habit. And how does the Constance man himself write ? With C or K. It's up to the person.

Here I see the difference between hand A and B.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

[Helmut Winkler]

The grammar for 15th-century German isn't that much different from modern grammar. It's readable once you get used to the old letter styles and the abbreviations. There are lots of dialects, but that is more a difference in spelling and vocabulary than grammar.

This is not really correct

[Helmut Winkler]

I am living in the  duchy of the Francia Orientalis, but the duchy of Suecia is only a few kilometres to the south

Aga is basically right, the C and K are really a difference in spelling which is nonsense, the K was thought to be 'German' in the 19th c., the C Romanesque,  the German language 'borders' have nothing much to do with todays politcial borders, if we can compare this with Currier A and B I don't know.

To tell the truth I have never really understood the difference between Currier A und B, not to mention what it could mean I can't see the different hands as well, neither Currier's nor the newer multiplication of hands. But what do I know about palaeography.

[Aga Tentakulus]

Sometimes it's really funny.

Now I have to ask Rene how do you spell "Chelchopfchräps" in Dutch?

[Koen G]

Dutch uses completely different words in this case (in fact, a different root for each of the three parts), so spelling is irrelevant. But let us try to return to the topic of this post.

[Aga Tentakulus]

@Koen, yes you are right.
Back to the "qo "

Let's do some philosophy.
Which cow makes moo? Welche Kuh macht muh? Cuh, Kuh or Quh.
To the ear, everything is actually the same. Even "Qh" would be like that, because the "u" is bound in the letter.
Question: How many words do I know where "Q" is without "u" and is not at the beginning of the word?
I'll just take "q" as "Q" for once. (qu). Now I simply attach the "a" from the word "taurus" to the "qu" ( o=a).
Now I just get "qo" once. (qo = qua) ?
"qc" = que?
What happens if I cross "qo" with "8aiin"?
"qo + iin" is it now called "quatis"? ( see dictionary ).

1. the frequency of "qo" sets limits. Question: Is it really always the same, or do I also have a "4o" there?

2. now there are also alphabets in the language salad where the "Q" does not occur at all, and "K" is used rather rarely. The letter "C" carries most of this.
Wouldn't it then be the case that the glyph "q,4" should also appear in the middle of a word?

I have no idea, but it is only philosophy.

[-JKP-]

There are many languages in which "q" occurs in numerous places in the word: "aqua" "cinque" "quinque" "pourquois" "bisque" (and others do not have "q").
This flexibility is not characteristic of the VMS.

[davidjackson]

OK, I don't understand the drift this topic is taking.
From the 1430's....
We have low German, which has drifted into dialects.
And we have middle high German (Mittelhochdeutsch)  which evolved into early new High German, or later, modern German.
As I understand it, "German" was a lingua franca in many parts of central europe, a language that was used for standard interactions or writing, but not day to day use.
So how can you defend that 15th century "German" (whatever that means) is equivalent in any way to the modern day language used in Germany?