(01-05-2021, 06:43 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Whereas the o is also used ( ä, au, ). We say "au"
... 
The person who suggested "milch" 40 years ago had no idea about German and its dialects, and certainly not about sentence order.
The sentence: "so nimm Ziegenmilch auch" is not real 

O is bigger then the other letters and has dots. It can be just a pictogram. It wouldn't be strange as this page contains three another pictures besides of it. F66r, contains pictograms, too.

The order of the letters is clear.
"xbrex". I am not allowed to just change the order and take another word.
In my dialect case, the possibilities are "s' obrä and abrän". Whereby the "ä" variant comes from gebrannt and not from brennen. Therefore ä and not e

The last "o" is related to "obren".
Our variant: "häsch mi au" ? häsch mich ?
Bavarian: "host mi o" host mi?
German: "hast Du mich auch ( verstanden )"?
Another possibility would be that it is not an "o" in obren but a "v", in which case it would mean verbrennt.

(01-05-2021, 10:27 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another possibility would be that it is not an "o" in obren but a "v", in which case it would mean verbrennt.

Clearly, there is "vbren" or "pbren". 
V stood for both V and U in xv c. 
Ubren can be a spelling version of Obren as in ober / uber, oberst / uberst, etc. 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

   

There is no such thing as a "pbren".
The "obren" depends on the word before and after. That explains what it means. In our VM case, it cannot mean the upper one.
A nice example is one of your links.
I have an excerpt here. Look closely at the cz and compare it with the VM "g".
The combinations " cz, tz, ez " have a meaning in the dialect.
For the whole sentence, from valden to o, to have a meaning and for the grammar to be correct, it cannot be a "g".
The "z" was written in the "t". It is a "tz". It means:
nim'tz as mich o. Typical Bavarian.

If I now add the two VM words to the sentence, and make it a,
Aber im val de(s) obren, so nim'tz as mich o"
The sentence would also make sense except for the "s". Since obren can now also mean the upper.
It is the Alemannic grammar and sentence order that matters now.

(30-04-2021, 01:10 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think that the interpretation "gasmi[l]ch" is the most probable for now, as there is no better explanation

So far I see absolutely no reason for it being most probable, since this reading is just built on pure invention. One voluntarily inserts "l" into mich and argues that "mich" should be read as "milch" when "mich" in itself is a perfectly valid and exceedingly common German word. Should we substitute all "mich" with "milch" in all German texts then? What are the grounds for that? It's really not much different from the susbstitution cipher Voynich solving, where if anything just looks nonsense it is suggested to insert or omit letters, to read the words backwards, and so on.

Everything is possible, e.g. there existed the practice of writing words backwards, or of omitting letters (abbreviation), but there should be a system in the interpretation, not just random picking this explanation and that one, whichever is convenient to "explain" something that does not fit.

As for a better explanation, it's been there for I don't know how long, and it's been discussed in the thread.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, I posted a question on RG to ask if there are examples of consistent spelling "mich" for "milch" in medieval manuscripts, and the only answer I got (from Adreas Kuelzer of the Austrian Academy of Science) is that if "mich" stands for "milch" it should be a simple misspelling. In other words, one would not write "milch" as "mich" intentionally. Now, of course, for a line of three words (as opposed to, say, a folio of three hundred) the probability of  such a mistake is close to zero.

The letter that you quote is very interesting in this respect, and if the spelling is really not a typo, but is accurately transferred from the original MS, that would be quite another thing; Franzhausen is Lower Austria (suitable place for the VMS provenance), and if it is shown that such kind of spelling is systematically observed in medieval documents in such and such region (say Lower Austria), that would be a good step forward.

The point that back then they spelled as they pronounced is a weak one, because milk is a very common subject of everyday life, and it is featured in writing I don't know how often. Then please show me examples where "mich" consistently stands for milk, and that would be a very solid point indeed. But seems like there are not that many such examples in existence, or, let's say, I have seen zero of them so far.

(30-04-2021, 01:10 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course, one can't assert that the circle pictogram with dots at the end of the line implies exactly milk

Frankly, milk as the possible object being represented by a circle pictogram would never come to my mind

(01-05-2021, 02:59 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Frankly, milk as the possible object being represented by a circle pictogram would never come to my mind

It can be anything, maybe, even, cheese, but to know for sure we need, at least, know what this recipe is for: making cheese, yogurt or something else. Is it a remedy or just cooking? 
As for the milch:
In one of my posts I wrote that I think it's just a misspelling, I don't think it is regular. On this matter I'm inclined to believe Rene and Helmut, and I read that children often make such a mistake, miss the letter "l" in "milch".

(01-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It can be anything, maybe, even, cheese, but to know for sure we need, at least, know what this recipe is for: making cheese, yogurt or something else. Is it a remedy or just cooking? 

If a circle is placed in line with a line of text, then my first guess would be just the letter "o"   That's why I was intrigued by learning that "o" stands for "auch" in some dialects.

(01-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In one of my posts I wrote that I think it's just a misspelling, I don't think it is regular.

Could be, but, as I say, I consider that's highly unlikely given the amount of text that one had to write. The probability of misspelling in three thousand words is decent, the probability of misspelling in half a line is virtually zero. Even if so, it would have been immediately corrected, would not have gone unnoticed.

(01-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On this matter I'm inclined to believe Rene and Helmut

I don't think that research matters are matters of belief. There are several German speakers participating in this thread, some of them native speakers, and I don't know why one should "believe" e.g. Helmut while not "believing" e.g. Aga. This is really matter of argument and comparative analysis. Show me a case where "mich" is consistently "milk" (or, even much better for the Voynich research, show me the historic region where it's been so), and that would be really solid argument.