[split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov

[-JKP-]

Koen, the use of nim, spelled as it is in the VMS, is valid.

I spent considerable time looking through 12th to 15th century documents for both gaf and nim to make sure they were in actual use in documents as seen on the last page VMS and I found both of them.

They are definitely regional. In fact, you could almost locate a manuscript by whether it was spelled nim, nym, or nimm (or could at least locate where the scribe learned the language). These quirks are specific to certain lowland, Alsace and Tirolian areas.

I wanted to blog about it because it was quite an interesting journey to locate them and study the linguistic patterns, but I simply can't spare the time right now to compile my notes into digestible text.


The grammar of all the marginalia smacks of someone who used German but didn't know it terribly well (or was not strong in grammar). The same oddities are seen at the top of the last page and in the top page marginalia earlier in the manuscript, mostly but not quite German, the kind of thing you might expect if German were the person's second language and they learned it later rather than earlier in life. I know people who arrived in my area as adult immigrants and never completely learned English. They blend it with their native languages and are difficult to understand and the way they speak reminds me of the VMS marginalia.

---

This is an interesting consideration, although the hypothetic stroke would be very short and immediately head over to the "m"'s ascender.

Yes we must not forget about that "round object". It should fit into the context somehow.
...

This is something I have blogged about (sorry, don't have time to look up the link, unfortunately I have to run again).

I don't think the round object is part of the text. I think it's more likely a drawing and there's a possibility it was on the page before the text was added.