New analysis of f116v, Central Bavarian dialect

[monisusa]

[quote="JoJo_Jost" pid='86149' dateline='1782074313']
Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.

However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) mo vix? mo = mollire vix = wax.

Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....

I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything

By the way, there are problems even with reading text on f17r. Even if we accept this as true, the meaning of this text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not particularly clear in this form. I believe that the combination of the word poxleber and crosses suggests a magical rather than a medicinal meaning.
And I would also like to know why the author shortened the words so much...
P.S. Of course, it's off-topic, but I had a theory that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were not written by the author, but by someone who received the manuscript from the author. This person might have known more about the manuscript and attempted to decipher it. It's possible that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents an unsuccessful attempt at deciphering the manuscript (it's possible that the recipe).

Hi, thank you for your question. Bocksleber = poxleber = liver of a billy goat. Liver was a common ingredient of medieval medicine. I explained that the "crosses" simply are addition signs to note which ingredients have to be added and which production steps to be carried out next. I could not find any trace of a magical content however, it is clearly a recipe with ingredients as willow bark, wax, potash, quick lime. I had these lines checked by the Head of the Austrian Chamber of Pharmacy Prof. Beba and he confirmed the plausibility of it. I reproduced this ointment successfully.

With some assumptions, it still sounds plausible. However, if this is bocksleber, then why did the author write it down as poxleber? Are there any other examples of similar practices where words were written down the same way they were pronounced? And is it really worth omitting the pox-prefix?
[/quote

Hello, as explained in my study the German sound /ks/ can be spelled with ks, cks or x. It is always pronounced the same way. At that time, German spelling was not yet standardized, therefore various spellings can occur. This doesn't mean one or the other spelling is "wrong".  Furthermore, it depends where the author was taught to write German which chancellery, monasteric environment, a place abroad etc. The b to p shift is a typical feature of the Upper German language group. Both spelling existed at the same time. Brot > prot (bread), bishof > pischof (bishop), Bern > pern (town in Switzerland).
Shortening words was mostly done to save parchment and time. Kind regard, Monika