There were many substitutions in the German language in Switzerland/Alsace, Bavaria/Tyrol in the 15th century.
For example, p was substituted for b and a was frequently substituted for e (depending on the word). Niet or nit was substituted for nicht.
But it was done in a reasonably consistent way.
Thus, you see ain for ein, main for mein, puch for buch, puchstabe for buchstabe, etc., throughout the manuscript.
However, here's the complication... that doesn't mean that every e was substituted by a or that every b was substituted by p. There were certain words they did that way. Since we can read German, it's easy to see which ones they were.
Unfortunately, we can't read the VMS, so we can't make a mental note of which ones might be substituted and which ones might not, which makes it harder to evaluate whether the translation substitutions are "consistent" or not within that particular system.
For example, p was substituted for b and a was frequently substituted for e (depending on the word). Niet or nit was substituted for nicht.
But it was done in a reasonably consistent way.
Thus, you see ain for ein, main for mein, puch for buch, puchstabe for buchstabe, etc., throughout the manuscript.
However, here's the complication... that doesn't mean that every e was substituted by a or that every b was substituted by p. There were certain words they did that way. Since we can read German, it's easy to see which ones they were.
Unfortunately, we can't read the VMS, so we can't make a mental note of which ones might be substituted and which ones might not, which makes it harder to evaluate whether the translation substitutions are "consistent" or not within that particular system.