09-05-2023, 05:39 PM
@Koen
I don't quite get it but it's interesting.
The St. Pölten document speaks of "Gaisiunge gans" which according to the footnote is supposed to mean the dish Gansjunges / Gänseklein which is giblets.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I disagree, how can a serving of giblets count as yearly tax? It was paid with live poultry or eggs, stuff with high shelf-life but obviously not with fast-spoiling innards. Or it means an inferior goose only suitable for giblets? I think it simply means young goose and the scribe made a mistake. The actual translation of "Gaisjunge" would be goat boy / goat herder which makes no sense either. In any case it shows transcription mistakes or ambiguities are common.
But the Herzogenburg document has "gaismich" which brings us the additional "mich". Even if we translate "gais" as geese which is possible in certain dialects, the "mich" it doesn't make sense at all. So I do not understand why the St. Pölten footnote is considered obsolete just because "gais" is also found in the Herzogenburg document. Unfortunately it tells us nothing about why they considered "gaismich" valid and what it is supposed to mean.
@Anton
gemast gens = gemästete Gänse = fattened geese
I don't quite get it but it's interesting.
The St. Pölten document speaks of "Gaisiunge gans" which according to the footnote is supposed to mean the dish Gansjunges / Gänseklein which is giblets.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I disagree, how can a serving of giblets count as yearly tax? It was paid with live poultry or eggs, stuff with high shelf-life but obviously not with fast-spoiling innards. Or it means an inferior goose only suitable for giblets? I think it simply means young goose and the scribe made a mistake. The actual translation of "Gaisjunge" would be goat boy / goat herder which makes no sense either. In any case it shows transcription mistakes or ambiguities are common.
But the Herzogenburg document has "gaismich" which brings us the additional "mich". Even if we translate "gais" as geese which is possible in certain dialects, the "mich" it doesn't make sense at all. So I do not understand why the St. Pölten footnote is considered obsolete just because "gais" is also found in the Herzogenburg document. Unfortunately it tells us nothing about why they considered "gaismich" valid and what it is supposed to mean.
@Anton
gemast gens = gemästete Gänse = fattened geese

