Also, looking carefully at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I see that the text says "gensjunge" (with the "gens" part emphasized in italics), while footnote a says "gaisiunge". The subsequent footnote 1 deals mostly with "gans" and makes a clumsy supposition that the scribe put "gais" instead of "gans" in mistake.
I think there are all sorts of confusion here.
The multitran online dictionary tells me that "Junge" is an Austrian expression for giblets (hen or goose). So I see it as follows:
1. The scribe originally wrote "gaisiunge" (modern way would be "geisjunge") and that was what he intended (whatever that means).
2. The editor of the book transcribes the parchment and recognizes the word as "geisiunge" or "geisinnge". He cannot understand the word, especially in the context of the subsequent "gens", and for that reason leaves the footnote a, which, in this case, serves just as kind of "sic!"
3. Enters another editor who pays attention to the word "gens" and recalls that "junge" is an Austrian jargon word for goose giblets. Respectively, he dismisses any goats and invents his clumsy explanation and adds it as footnote 1. He also substitutes "gais" with "gens" in the transcription, but puts it in italics to mark it as editorial correction.
4. At the stage of corrections, enters yet another editor who also ventured to consult another collection of documents (that where "gaismich" is featured). He understands what "gaismich" is, and comes to conclusion that "gaisjunge" is something homogenous to "gaismich", and thus it is a perfectly valid word fit in the context. Respectively, he dismisses footnote 1. Footnote a needs not be obsoleted because it just attests what is actually written in the parchment. (The "vgl Anm 1" in italics is actually just a reference to Footnote 1, added by our second Editor).
I see that the text says "gensjunge" (with the "gens" part emphasized in italics), while footnote a says "gaisiunge". The subsequent footnote 1 deals mostly with "gans" and makes a clumsy supposition that the scribe put "gais" instead of "gans" in mistake.
I think there are all sorts of confusion here.
The multitran online dictionary tells me that "Junge" is an Austrian expression for giblets (hen or goose). So I see it as follows:
1. The scribe originally wrote "gaisiunge" (modern way would be "geisjunge") and that was what he intended (whatever that means).
2. The editor of the book transcribes the parchment and recognizes the word as "geisiunge" or "geisinnge". He cannot understand the word, especially in the context of the subsequent "gens", and for that reason leaves the footnote a, which, in this case, serves just as kind of "sic!"
3. Enters another editor who pays attention to the word "gens" and recalls that "junge" is an Austrian jargon word for goose giblets. Respectively, he dismisses any goats and invents his clumsy explanation and adds it as footnote 1. He also substitutes "gais" with "gens" in the transcription, but puts it in italics to mark it as editorial correction.
4. At the stage of corrections, enters yet another editor who also ventured to consult another collection of documents (that where "gaismich" is featured). He understands what "gaismich" is, and comes to conclusion that "gaisjunge" is something homogenous to "gaismich", and thus it is a perfectly valid word fit in the context. Respectively, he dismisses footnote 1. Footnote a needs not be obsoleted because it just attests what is actually written in the parchment. (The "vgl Anm 1" in italics is actually just a reference to Footnote 1, added by our second Editor).