-JKP- > 27-05-2019, 09:49 AM
Helmut Winkler > 27-05-2019, 11:04 AM
Anton > 27-05-2019, 11:32 AM
(27-05-2019, 09:49 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess we should also keep in mind that it might not be "gas" mich. It might be "gaf" mich (there is an abrasion in the parchment where the crossbar for the "f" would be and there is a very slight trace of ink). I usually transcribe it as gas/gaf.
MarcoP > 27-05-2019, 12:45 PM
(27-05-2019, 11:04 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They are two different words: das with a long s should be dasz mit sz or ß, the conjunction, das with the round s is the article
Helmut Winkler > 27-05-2019, 05:16 PM
(27-05-2019, 12:45 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-05-2019, 11:04 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They are two different words: das with a long s should be dasz mit sz or ß, the conjunction, das with the round s is the article
So this could be compatible with "gas" (for geiß) being written with a long-s, while the apparently Latin words ending in -s are written with an 8-like final 's'?
Helmut Winkler > 27-05-2019, 05:20 PM
(27-05-2019, 11:32 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-05-2019, 09:49 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess we should also keep in mind that it might not be "gas" mich. It might be "gaf" mich (there is an abrasion in the parchment where the crossbar for the "f" would be and there is a very slight trace of ink). I usually transcribe it as gas/gaf.
I'm pretty confident it's "s". If you zoom it, you'll see that this trace of ink is actually the part of the "m" 's ascender. And that mens that "s" and "m" are really very close to each other, virtually no space. I'd say, 99% for "s".
Monica Yokubinas > 31-05-2019, 03:50 PM
-JKP- > 31-05-2019, 05:51 PM
Monica Yokubinas > 31-05-2019, 09:34 PM
(31-05-2019, 05:51 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Monica, where do you see "um", on 116v or 17r?
Both of these are written in normal 15th-century script.
- The first word on 116v is po? (probably pox, since the filled-in x shape is the same shape ad style of x as those on line 3).
- The first word on 17r is mallier.
The first word on the second line of 116v is not "um". It's either anchiton, mehiton, or michiton (if the first letter is a medieval loop-m but is unusually missing the tail on the m). There is no "u" at the beginning of the second line.
-----
In medieval script, plus signs are not usually references. They either represent a cross, or they represent a paragraph to note (the same way they used the word "nota"), or they represent a position in the text (usually ecclesiastical text) where the priest genuflects to give more emphasis or power to the words. The plus sign was also used in charms to indicate a place to genuflect, and was just barely starting to be used as a plus/minus symbol in ledgers (to indicate credits as opposed to debits).
The 116v writer may have had some personal meaning for the plus signs, but it was not typical for it to be used as cross-references to other authors in medieval texts.
------
So you are saying that aror sheey means "hated one El and to sweep of perfection". Can you explain how you got that? I think I know how you did it, but others might be interested in an explanation.
-JKP- > 31-05-2019, 10:27 PM