10-05-2023, 10:53 AM
I'm afraid I still don't understand.
There are two emendations in the St. Pölten Urkundenbuch p.500 regarding "gensjunge gans": (a) and (1). In the corrigenum the emedation (1), the interpretation, is declared obsolete. This does not affect emendation (a) "Gaisiunge, Gaisinnge".
As stated in (1) there clearly is a capitalized word there that reads "Gaisiunge" or "Gaisinnge". However after finding "gaismich" in the slightly older book about Herzogenburg written by M. Faigl, the interpretation as "gensjunge gans" with the nonsensical translation as goose giblets was rejected. We are not told what the alternative explanation is but it appears it should be easy to derive from "gaismich". Well, not to us. But it appears "gais-" is correct and "gens-" is not. Again, we'd have to look at the original documents for clarification - if they still exist.
Or is my interpretation fundamentally wrong?
There are two emendations in the St. Pölten Urkundenbuch p.500 regarding "gensjunge gans": (a) and (1). In the corrigenum the emedation (1), the interpretation, is declared obsolete. This does not affect emendation (a) "Gaisiunge, Gaisinnge".
As stated in (1) there clearly is a capitalized word there that reads "Gaisiunge" or "Gaisinnge". However after finding "gaismich" in the slightly older book about Herzogenburg written by M. Faigl, the interpretation as "gensjunge gans" with the nonsensical translation as goose giblets was rejected. We are not told what the alternative explanation is but it appears it should be easy to derive from "gaismich". Well, not to us. But it appears "gais-" is correct and "gens-" is not. Again, we'd have to look at the original documents for clarification - if they still exist.
Or is my interpretation fundamentally wrong?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)