Morten St George Theory

[-JKP-]

Just because all the great handwriting experts of the past say it's nim does not mean that you have to follow in their folly. We are very fortunate that Shakespeare decided to help out by giving us "ubren" because the shape of that n doesn't even remotely resemble what could be the first letter of mur, so that word couldn't possibly be nim! As I have been saying, the dot above mur is just a stray dot like the dot you see down below the letter u. Meanwhile, the ending upswing on the final r faded away as it almost did for the r in ubren. It's a WALL, silly.

You probably don't realize this, but you say the most incredibly insulting things and make a HUGE number of incorrect assumptions.

I did not consult other experts. For the first five years I studied the VMS the only site I looked at was Edith Sherwood's plant site and it was not because I was using it as a resource, it was because I was shaking my head and disagreed with most of it.


I read this as "nim" because I have read many old German manuscripts, because I know some German and some Yiddish, and because "so nim gaf/gas mich" are German words, four in a row. So it is not folly, but knowledge of languages (several languages) that leads me to read this as nim. That's how it was commonly written in many manuscripts, with one "m".

If you can't see that it says nim and not mur, then obviously you didn't look at the other "i" shapes on the page which all have leading serifs, obviously you are ignoring the dot over the "i" (yes, it is there), you are ignoring how the other "r" shapes are written on this folio (they are NOT written like the hump kind that you are assuming on the word "nim"), you are ignoring the context of the four words around it, and you don't know how to read medieval script.

You see what you want to see.

Over and out. I'm done. Enjoy yourself.