Thank you for your comments!
I'm not very good in (Middle High) German grammar, so please correct me if I'm wrong in the following considerations.
Suppose it reads "valden ubren". Now, if "ubren" expands as "uber den", then we should expect some noun in genitive after "den", since "den" is an article. We cannot expect this noun to be encoded by aror sheey, because a construct like "this object fold (it) over the" is not natural for German language. And neither we have any noun following "den".
Now, therefore, this "ubren" does not stand for "uber den".
But could it stand just for "over" (without any article)? If so, would the reverse word order like "this object fold over" (in the meaning "fold (it) over this object") be fine for German? In Russian this would not be against the rules; albeit does not sound very natural, but would be OK e.g. in the poetic verse.
Suppose it is "uber", but subject to declension. Which case, then?
Actually I'm trying to find possibilities for the scenario where aror sheey denotes some object, over which one needs to fold the paper with the spell.
There are some arguments against such a scenario though. The object would be necessarily a small one, because to fold paper over some large object, such as part of a body, you need a huge sheet of paper (not a spell, but rather a newspaper). Next, if aror sheey stands for an object, then we are left in the dark as to the purpose of the spell. Fold me over aror sheey, then take me quickly... und so weiter?
Me too. I've long been wandering why no MHD expert is interested in the Voynich Manuscript.
Also, mind that if "valden" stands for "falten", it is infinitive, not imperative. So it is not "fold it over!", but, at most, "to fold over".
Can we imagine a context in which infinitive would be appropriate? Russian Wikipedia page suggests that in MHD, and especially in AHD, infinitive was somewhat more flexibly used than it is nowadays.
I'm not very good in (Middle High) German grammar, so please correct me if I'm wrong in the following considerations.
Suppose it reads "valden ubren". Now, if "ubren" expands as "uber den", then we should expect some noun in genitive after "den", since "den" is an article. We cannot expect this noun to be encoded by aror sheey, because a construct like "this object fold (it) over the" is not natural for German language. And neither we have any noun following "den".
Now, therefore, this "ubren" does not stand for "uber den".
But could it stand just for "over" (without any article)? If so, would the reverse word order like "this object fold over" (in the meaning "fold (it) over this object") be fine for German? In Russian this would not be against the rules; albeit does not sound very natural, but would be OK e.g. in the poetic verse.
Suppose it is "uber", but subject to declension. Which case, then?
Actually I'm trying to find possibilities for the scenario where aror sheey denotes some object, over which one needs to fold the paper with the spell.
There are some arguments against such a scenario though. The object would be necessarily a small one, because to fold paper over some large object, such as part of a body, you need a huge sheet of paper (not a spell, but rather a newspaper). Next, if aror sheey stands for an object, then we are left in the dark as to the purpose of the spell. Fold me over aror sheey, then take me quickly... und so weiter?
Quote:but if a professor with more experience in MHD looked at the text, I'm very hopeful that we could find a solution
Me too. I've long been wandering why no MHD expert is interested in the Voynich Manuscript.
Also, mind that if "valden" stands for "falten", it is infinitive, not imperative. So it is not "fold it over!", but, at most, "to fold over".
Can we imagine a context in which infinitive would be appropriate? Russian Wikipedia page suggests that in MHD, and especially in AHD, infinitive was somewhat more flexibly used than it is nowadays.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)