[split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov

[Anton]

Does it make sense if aror sheey is a part of the sentence in the first person (I do, I will etc.)?

Technically it does, but in such case it is not clear why would the author encrypt this portion. In my blog post, I suggested some options which could explain encryption:

• quantitative characteristic, like “three times” or “seven days”;
  
• qualitative modus operandi, like “wear on the neck”;
  
• name of the disease, like “against delirium tremens”.
  

Could valden or valten  be interpreted as walten?

I posed the same question You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I think that deserves attention, although in that case we would again have the reverse order of words, like "<this object> rule over" instead of "rule over <this object>".

As to the vellen stuff. The Lexer article, among other things, refers to Kaiserchronik (edition 1849, available free at Google Books) with its following verse (p. 385):

Er hiez in vieder werfen.
des enmaht im niemen gehelsen.
do vorte man in gesailet.
dem man was vertailet.
andem buche. unt andem ruke.
si worsen in ab der bruke.
zedes wages grunde.
do valten in di sunde.

(I changed "u" to "v" in the beginning of words for convenience).

Although the meaning of the whole verse flees from me, we have here "valten", which is much the same as "valden", and if I'm not mistaken, "do valten in di sunde" means "then fell into sin".