Last line of f116v

[Carnby]

I've been looking at the last line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and at some of the German readings that have been proposed for it. A different possibility occurred to me. I would segment part of the line as:

[Voynichese "words"] valsch vůren [...] so nim Got(ſ) mich [plummeting stone]

The two forms that particularly interest me are therefore valsch vůren, with possible normalized modern equivalent falsch führen. In fact, initial v- for f- is well attested in Middle High German.

Finding exact parallels is not straightforward. Depending on scribal practice, the initial u/v shapes could be differentiated in different ways, and modern editors might transcribe or normalize a comparable form quite differently (v-, u-, uv-, uu-, w-, etc.). The semicircular superscript sign, possibly indicating Umlaut, introduces another variable, so searching electronically for one particular spelling could be misleading.

Instead, nim rather than modern nimm seems less remarkable to me, but it still deserves some caution as far as spelling normalization is concerned, as does the possible Got(ſ).

This leads me to two related questions:

1. Is the identification of the form I have tentatively written vůren with führen palaeographically and linguistically plausible for a 15th-century German text?
   
2. If so, are there contemporary attestations of falsch + führen (in whatever spelling), and what would the construction have meant at the time?
   

[oshfdk]

[*]If so, are there contemporary attestations of falsch + führen (in whatever spelling), and what would the construction have meant at the time?

Looks like there one You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and looks like a tiny 'e' over 'u' is used instead of the umlaut):

   

I can't really read German, no idea what it says.

Edit: also valsch has a lot of appearances in the XV century German books via Google Books, some of them even have something similar to "vurein" nearby, but I couldn't find this exact combination together.

[bi3mw]

I can't really read German, no idea what it says.

„...beibringe, sollte mehr bestraft werden, als ein Anderer, welcher einem Kinde unrechte Lehren gebe. Ebenso sollten sie, wenn sie die Liste über Schulversäumnisse falsch führen, einer größeren Strafe unterliegen, als ein anderer, der nur in sein gewöhnliches Schreibbuch etwas falsch einge[tragen]..."

"...taught wrong doctrines, should be punished more than another who gives a child incorrect teachings. Likewise, they should, if they falsely keep the list of school absences, be subject to a greater punishment than another who merely enters something incorrectly in his ordinary exercise-book..."

[Koen G]

How do you read those two words as valsch vůren?

[ololololo]

Well, it's possible that the inscription on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a dialectal variant. But I'm very bad at German, so I can't understand why vuren is ubren and Got(s) is gas(gaf). However, I think the t could have been omitted and the o replaced with an a.

[JoJo_Jost]

falsch = Wrong

if vůren = "führen" then:

keep
lead
Carry
take
guide
conduct
run
direct
etc.

but it is not "v" but "p"....

[Carnby]

How do you read those two words as valsch vůren?

falsch = Wrong

if vůren = "führen" then:

keep
lead
Carry
take
guide
conduct
run
direct
etc.

but it is not "v" but "p"....

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is how I currently segment the graphemes.

My reading is only tentative. I don't start from the expected word, but from the individual letterforms. The first word is based on my interpretation of the graphemes as v-a-l-ꟙ-ch, while the second is based on v-u-r-e-n, with the superscript mark tentatively interpreted as an umlaut. I fully agree that some of these graphemes are debatable, especially the one I read as ꟙ (sigmoid s or closed s). That shape, common in Britain, is also attested in German-language manuscripts.

The spelling would be unusual, since the normal German ligature is ſch, and I have not yet found a parallel for ꟙch. However, given the informal nature of the marginal note and the variability of fifteenth-century cursive hands, I would regard it as unusual rather than impossible.