116v

[-JKP-]

...

PS: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a lovely mix of Latin and German from the same manuscript:

"Item si vis venaturam facere so nim aines totten menschen haupt...."

Hahaha! I don't think I want to know why they want "aines totten menschen"!

---

This is what the first word, second line You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks like to me.

• The disconnected loop on the "a" is typical of how he writes. He rarely connects the bottom to the stem.
  
• I don't think that's a dot for the "i"—it's too big and doesn't look like the rest. I think it's a stain in the parchment. Unlike Voynichese, the marginalia "i" usually has an upright stem. The way it's joined and the angle suggests to me it's the last leg of an "n".
  
• There are many scribes who put a loop at the beginning of an "m" but it doesn't look to me like that is what is happening here. The "a" is smaller than normal but I still think an "a" was intended. The letter at the far right of that line doesn't match anything on the page. it's bigger, rounder and doesn't even look like the same hand. I've always wondered if it's a different hand. If so, it's difficult to know if it's "m" or "n" as there aren't enough examples so I'm hesitant to use it for deciding if the first letter is "a" or "m".
  

I'll concede that the first letter is ambiguous, that it could be taken as either "a" or "m" but... I don't think the "i" (or lack thereof) is ambiguous. I don't see any clear evidence that there's an "i" after the first letter, so my vote is for "a" followed by "n".