It's a small point, but "mehl" in the Middle Ages was probably closer to "meal" (course-ground flour) than "flour" in the modern fine-ground sense. In other words, as in "corn meal" or "oat meal" or other course grains used to make porridge.

In Saxony and other parts of Germany, it was "melo" (meal) which comes from the old German (or perhaps proto-German) for the verb to grind or crush.


I mention it because porridge was a very common ingredient in medicinal recipes, so sometimes when they mention "mehl" as an ingredient, they're actually referring to porridge (I discovered this by cross-referencing some of the old German recipes with some of the Old English and Middle English recipes from the same sources).

For those who are familiar with German dialects, which region would you say these readings for 116v belong to? I'm asking because of the "der mus del" marginalia, which are unmistakably Low German if they refer to "the widow's share".

If "poch" is meant to be billy-goat, then the "p" for "b" was often found in the Alsace and Bavaria/Tirol. There were other pockets where they used it. I've kept track of this (ongoing). When "x" was substituted for "ch" it was usually in scholarly circles where they learned Greek as well as Latin.

I would have to look it up, but for a couple of years, I made a record of manuscripts where I found "nim" instead of "nimm" (with the dropped-m) and if I remember correctly, they were mostly from NW Germany but some might have been in the south. "Gaf" for "gave" was specific to  a narrow time-period and in lowland German-speaking areas in the northwest and was much less frequent than "nim" or "p" for "b" (and "a" for "e").

So in other words, if we want to interpret both lines in a "recipe" way, we need to either mix at least two quite different dialects or assume they were written by different persons?

(09-11-2017, 10:26 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So in other words, if we want to interpret both lines in a "recipe" way, we need to either mix at least two quite different dialects or assume they were written by different persons?

There is some overlap in the areas where these substitutions happened.

For example, substituting "p" for "b" tended to happen in the same regions in which they substituted "a" for "e" (in words like ain and main). Strong overlap.

The use of the Greek "x" for "ch" happened many places. It was more related to educational background than region.


Unfortunately, the wrinkle in this is that a foreigner trying to write in an unfamiliar language might also make these substitutions, not because of regional variations, but because of unfamiliarity.


The only real give-away I can find in the germanic words is "gaf" which is less likely to be written that way accidentally. But, it too is a puzzle, because it's not certain whether it's an "f" or a long-s due to a blemish or erasure in the parchment right where the crossbar to the "f" would be if there ever was one.

If it is "f" then it's "gave". If it is "s" then it could be goose or goat or other things that have been suggested. In Nordic languages "gås" is goose and this form of the word shows up in parts of southern Germany as well (possibly due to Scandinavian migration into a couple of the Alpine communes).


The "mich" ("me") seems clear but some have proposed "mi[l]ch" and I can understand why. There are pockets where they drop some of the consonants near the ends of words (this is still true today). So while I personally think a reading of "gaf mich" is more likely, it is reasonable to suggest that it might also be milk, with a dropped-l.


It's remarkable that at every corner, there's a fly in the ointment, some little detail that obscures the interpretation.

Hi all,

Some of you think that "8" could be a "s".

Maybe this "8" could be a "d" or a "D".

I found on BNF a letter written in 1473 by Louis XI, king of France.

You can read on the first line :
" Louis, par la grace de Dieu, roy de France ". ( Louis, by the grace of God, king of France.)

   

However, I can't translate folio 116v.

Paris, it's true that I interpreted the figure-8 as "s" on my most recent blog about f116v, bu if you look at some of my earlier blogs, I have also suggested that it might be a "d".

I've always assumed it was most likely one of these possibilities:

• s
  
• d
  
• th
  
• hard-h (as in Hebrew)
  
• or a symbol for a sound that is not represented well by Latin letters.
  

Given the way it is positioned in words, it is most likely a consonant.


The figure-8 form of "d" is most common in France and Germany but is occasionally found in other areas in the 15th century.

The only reason I lean toward "s" on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is because "portas" is meaningful and "portad" is less so and because there is already a conventional "d" shape in "oladabas" that differs from the figure-8. But I've never assumed this shape is definitely an "s" or even that the "d" in "olad" is actually a "d", just that they are more likely to be so (Occam's razor)


One of the possibilities for "oladabas" that I haven't had time to write about is "o la Sabath" if the shape that looks like "d" is actually "s" and the figure-8 is thorn.

There was recent splash of discussion about abbreviations in the forum, and it was reiterated (by JKP I think) that principles of Latin abbreviation were oftentimes transferred to writings in other languages using the Latin script as well.

In that view, it suddenly occured to me that otherwise unintelligible portions of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. may in fact feature abbreviation symbols (which we try to interpret as plain text, and thus to no avail).

It was in connection with (p/v)al(d/s)en in the last line that this idea came to me. The fact is that neither "e" nor "n" in this word do look natural unless you attribute what's in between them simply to a blot. But in fact the supposed blot may be a tail for the "e", making the whole shape look like Voynichese s . As abbreviation, this stood for "er", as Cappelli suggests.

I was not able to find a valid translation of "palderen", "valderen", "palseren" or "valseren" though. Maybe the "8" shape is an abbreviation also?

Any thoughts?

I'm always coming back to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and trying to look at it in different ways.


One of the ideas I had a while ago is that maybe that strange "palsen pbren" is a name.

If those are letter "p" with the stems expunged (they look much more like the tops of "p" than medieval "v"), then it's possible there's a stroke through one (or both). If there were a stroke through the second one (making it "per" rather than "p"), then it would come out like a name (Palsen Perbren) or more simply Palsen Pebren. There is also a place-name of Pilsen in Germany, yes, the Pilsen beer town, (which I think I discovered was sometimes spelled Plsen, without the "i", in the manner of eastern European languages, in the middle ages).

I also wondered if those "p" tops might be pronounced as in Old English as "th" or "w".

Just some ideas. Since palsen/valsen pbren/vbren doesn't resolve easily into words, but does sound like a name (northern German, Saxon, or Scandinavian), maybe there's another way of interpreting it.

(09-07-2018, 02:18 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Maybe the "8" shape is an abbreviation also?

Any thoughts?

Being ignorant of German, I am not particularly qualified to answer. I would be interested in knowing Helmut's opinion.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1450 ca) is an example of final -s appearing with an 8-shape in German-language documents: this seems to me the safest interpretation. This has its problems of course, including the fact that 8 seems to occur midword in "val8en".

PS: transcription of Sang. poem You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.