[Article] Thomas Ernst Handwriting and Paleographic Design in the VM.

[LisaFaginDavis]

Regarding the word "(g)as", which he reads as "gef", it should actually be "gaf".
"gaf" is Alemannic and means "look".
Examples:
Don't look at me.
He looks at all the women.

He has no idea what he's talking about.


The word “(g)as,” which he reads as “gef,” should actually be “gaf.”
'Gaf' is Alemannic and means “look.”
Examples:
gaf mich nöd a / don't look at me.
He looks at all the women.

He has no idea what he's talking about.

As in the example
"Don't give me a break".
Here, the "a" at the end has a meaning.
Just like the "o" at the end of "mich o".
Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand Upper German anyway.

As in the example
“Don't give me a break.”
Here, the “a” at the end has a meaning.
Just like the “o” at the end of “mich o.”
Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand Upper German anyway.

There is quite a lot here that is simply incorrect. Ernst is a skilled early-modern paleographer, but there are huge changes in book culture between the early 1400s and the next century. Expertise in one does not necessarily apply to the other. Setting aside the paleographical argument, even the codicological observations are simply not true. He contends that the quire numbers "always" appear on the first recto instead of the last verso and the "incorrect" placement of the Voynich quire numbers supports his forgery theory. It is true that beginning in the late 1400s, when manuscripts begin to emulate printed books, quire numbers may appear, if they are used at all, on the first recto of a quire. That's because in early printed books, the quire number (called a "signature" in a printed book) does indeed appear on the first recto. But in earlier manuscripts quire numbers almost always appear on the final verso, along with the catchwords (if there are any). Both elements are sometimes lost when the book is trimmed for binding. The Voynich quire numbers are exactly where they should be (except for the "20"). He also misread some of the quire numbers. The missing numbers are in sequence: 12, 16, and 18. The missing quire numbers are easily explained by simply referring to the collation statement. the number "12" is missing because it would have been on f. 74, the missing conjoint of f. 73. Number "16" is missing because the bifolio 91|92 is missing and the "16" would have been on the bottom of f. 92v. Number "18" is missing because the bifolio 97|98 is missing and the "18" would have been at the bottom of f. 98v. I explain all of this in my Materiality lecture, starting around minute 29.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.