F66r question

[Koen G]

Rene: that makes sense. To make this discussion easier, let's use similar English words. Mush is similar enough to "Mus", and meal (as in "a coarse, unsifted powder ground from the edible seeds of any grain") is similar to "mel".

Meal mush is a mush made of meal.
Mush meal is a type of meal used for making a mush.

So what you are saying is that if the meaning of these words are indeed "mush" and "meal", we must assume that it refers to a type of meal (ground powder) rather than the mush made of that meal.

A first question to follow up on this would be why one would write "mush meal" at all - did that exist as a concept or would it have been a unique formation? It would be interesting if any other references to a mush meal exist in external texts. This would reinforce the reading and perhaps suggest some context.

The second, more difficult question is what this means for the first "word". Unless I'm mistaken, it cannot be read as an article that goes with "mel".

Aga: do I understand correctly that you think this is what happened?

1) someone writes den mus me, "...then must you...". This is not just a partial sentence, it is very explicitly the middle of a sentence.
2) someone corrects this to den mus de, "...then must this...", which is again the middle of a sentence.
3) this is then changed to den mus des, which has a similar meaning
4) ...but you also think it means mush meal?