What a funny forum this is!
The only one who presented a reasonable argument against this translation was Koen. He questioned the f with a loop, and rightly so. However, I was able to verify the f with a loop using two sources, one of which had a character set that matched the time period and also contained the "h" in the fourth word, “her.” So double proof.= 100 percent certain.
This was followed by a blanket condemnation by Stolfi, which he then withdrew with an apology after he had to admit that he was not familiar with the explanations.
This was followed by another blanket condemnation by Bernd without any justification, but with reference to two links that refer to 116r. What do I have to do with 116r? There is talk of “mental gymnastics.” Obviously, he also did not read the explanations, or did not understand them, I don't know.
I have often seen such “mental gymnastics,” especially in relation to 116r, but it usually differs considerably from what I have done. Precisely because there is a lack of comprehensible evidence and proof.
I would like to say the following about this: Such blanket condemnations are unscientific and arrogant!
But I have the right to defend myself in science, and that is what I will now do.
That the l in luc3 is a f is clearly documented! You can see the stroke at least on the right side of the letter.
The c is a reasonable assumption.
Hopefully, no one will doubt that 3 = m and the macron = omitted letter are 100% certain.
It follows that the probability that luc3 is fucum is extremely high.
It is 100% certain that fucum can also mean bee resin/propolis.
So far, I don't see any hint of “mental gymnastics.”
That the "u" in mulher is a capital A - how blind do you have to be to not see that based on the new high-resolution screenshots? 100% certain.
It is clearly proven that an A can have a loop to its right. Also 100% proven.
If that is a capital A, then the "m" stands alone before it. And it is also clearly proven that a single “m” without a macron can mean magister.
The fourth word “her'” with an apostrophe in a botanical context on a page about herbs: = herba / herbis: highly plausible.
The h in mulher is not an h, as proven by the h in “her” 100 percent certain.
If, in a botanical context in which a word can also mean resin/propolis, I have:
Magister AXiar' (x as a variable) is Apiar from Apiarius, which is more than obvious.
And if the x in Axiar' is a P, then appar' immediately follows.
This is all normal scientific deduction and procedure, and so far there is no sign of “mental gymnastics,” sorry, but that is total nonsense!
And to prevent further discussion, I had marked the last three words as “speculative”; they are also in very poor condition, so any solution here must always be speculative. I thought it was an elegant solution, as it gave the clearly verifiable sentence fragment an interesting direction. But this was obviously misunderstood, so I am withdrawing this speculative solution in the course of further discussion.
Conclusion: The translation of the first four words presented here is scientifically verifiable and highly logical, thus far from “mental gymnastics.” Such comments without further justification are indeed what is “tiresome” and demonstrate how little attention some people here are willing to pay to the opinions of others.
Jost
The only one who presented a reasonable argument against this translation was Koen. He questioned the f with a loop, and rightly so. However, I was able to verify the f with a loop using two sources, one of which had a character set that matched the time period and also contained the "h" in the fourth word, “her.” So double proof.= 100 percent certain.
This was followed by a blanket condemnation by Stolfi, which he then withdrew with an apology after he had to admit that he was not familiar with the explanations.
This was followed by another blanket condemnation by Bernd without any justification, but with reference to two links that refer to 116r. What do I have to do with 116r? There is talk of “mental gymnastics.” Obviously, he also did not read the explanations, or did not understand them, I don't know.
I have often seen such “mental gymnastics,” especially in relation to 116r, but it usually differs considerably from what I have done. Precisely because there is a lack of comprehensible evidence and proof.
I would like to say the following about this: Such blanket condemnations are unscientific and arrogant!
But I have the right to defend myself in science, and that is what I will now do.
That the l in luc3 is a f is clearly documented! You can see the stroke at least on the right side of the letter.
The c is a reasonable assumption.
Hopefully, no one will doubt that 3 = m and the macron = omitted letter are 100% certain.
It follows that the probability that luc3 is fucum is extremely high.
It is 100% certain that fucum can also mean bee resin/propolis.
So far, I don't see any hint of “mental gymnastics.”
That the "u" in mulher is a capital A - how blind do you have to be to not see that based on the new high-resolution screenshots? 100% certain.
It is clearly proven that an A can have a loop to its right. Also 100% proven.
If that is a capital A, then the "m" stands alone before it. And it is also clearly proven that a single “m” without a macron can mean magister.
The fourth word “her'” with an apostrophe in a botanical context on a page about herbs: = herba / herbis: highly plausible.
The h in mulher is not an h, as proven by the h in “her” 100 percent certain.
If, in a botanical context in which a word can also mean resin/propolis, I have:
Magister AXiar' (x as a variable) is Apiar from Apiarius, which is more than obvious.
And if the x in Axiar' is a P, then appar' immediately follows.
This is all normal scientific deduction and procedure, and so far there is no sign of “mental gymnastics,” sorry, but that is total nonsense!
And to prevent further discussion, I had marked the last three words as “speculative”; they are also in very poor condition, so any solution here must always be speculative. I thought it was an elegant solution, as it gave the clearly verifiable sentence fragment an interesting direction. But this was obviously misunderstood, so I am withdrawing this speculative solution in the course of further discussion.
Conclusion: The translation of the first four words presented here is scientifically verifiable and highly logical, thus far from “mental gymnastics.” Such comments without further justification are indeed what is “tiresome” and demonstrate how little attention some people here are willing to pay to the opinions of others.
Jost