[split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov

[Searcher]

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>".

Thanks. 
I'm also interested how this part of the sentence might be translated in the case of "valden"="walten".
"walten ubren (oberen) so nimm gâs mich"