The 'geis milch' reading has one great advantage, it makes sense, as a reading in  itself, in the 116v context and in a general  context as well. That is more than what we can say about most of the ms.

Unfortunately, I don't know German, therefore I can only produce and check versions with the help of books and native speakers. The latter likely can better understand which dialect it can be, or apply to paleographers of Germany with all the versions to understand which ones can exist in one region, in the same time. On my opinion, only gathering all the versions and adressing to paleographers of the region, we can made this matter to be solved.

(01-05-2021, 05:13 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 'geis milch' reading has one great advantage, it makes sense, as a reading in  itself, in the 116v context and in a general  context as well.

The "so nim gas mich o" reading makes contextual sense as well, and I'd say greater sense in the context of the spell.

But from the perspective of attacking the VMS, most important is the "palden pbren". If the supposed meaning of "aror sheey" can be hinted by the context of "palden pbren", that would be a huge step forward.

       
Let's say it's called gasmilch.
If I look at the sentence, I have many mistakes. The whole sequence is not correct. Wrong sentence order and spelling mistakes.
Even the "o" is in the wrong place.
It should be "o gasmilch". Now it's better but still wrong. "Take" as a form of command does not work like that.
Then he would have to write it like this. "so goat o gasmilch
Even though the spelling differs from normal German, it has rules in the sentence order.
"palden pbren"
With "palden" there is the possibility for "bald ein" (soon a ).
whereas "pbren" has no variant. It does not exist like that.
If I compare the third word above "umen or vmen" these are quite normal.
They stand for ( von einem oder um einen ). around one or of one
The question is "U or V". If I take valden, there will also be a "v" in "bren".
Thus it would be vbren. Correctly written " v'bren".
What I don't understand is why everyone holds so firmly to a "g", although thousands of examples prove the opposite.
However. For me, it will never be goat's milk. There's just everything wrong with milk.

What I want to say is that I can't accuse the person who wrote it of having bad German (in whatever form) if the rest of the book suggests that he studied somewhere.

If he studied, I assume that his own language was the first thing he learned. So I rule out many mistakes.

Aga, g is differentiated with the crossbar. In your examples g in "gotes" or in "geb" exhibits the crossbar, while "tz", though visually resembling "g", does not have that crossbar. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. word has the distinct crossbar, I show it in blue, that's why I think it's "g", and not cz/tz.

Taking the opportunity, I also  show in brown how easy it is to introduce the allegedly missing "l" - but the scribe did not do that.

   

(01-05-2021, 10:05 AM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.O is bigger then the other letters and has dots.

About the dots. If you look closely, these dots are not directly related to the "o", but instead they are the continuation of the ornate descender of the "h". I've shown that in this previous post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Why such ornate descender, I cannot tell. The natural guess is to connect "mich" to the spell in general or to "maria" in particular, in the former case this would suggest that by "mich" he means the spell, but anyway the line has that seemingly unnecessary overfall to the upper left of the "o", and this is doubly curious.

   
@Anton
The bar thing is certainly an argument.
Pro and con.
But a "g" has a straight back, but the VM variant does not. The z was drawn too far into the t.
As you can see in the example word "gentzlich", there are differences.
Now I have to decide. If I take a "g", I have all the mistakes as before.
If I take a "tz" at this point, the sentence position, the grammar and the sense are correct.
Even if in the spelling the "tz" belongs to the word "nim".
Middle German " nimt's" : Alemannic "nimtz".
To the ear, it is correct exactly as it is written. It is the pause between swallows that makes the difference. "nim_tz_äs" in Alemannic. You could say it's a word.
That's why it's not a "g" for me.

(01-05-2021, 05:51 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-05-2021, 05:13 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 'geis milch' reading has one great advantage, it makes sense, as a reading in  itself, in the 116v context and in a general  context as well.

The "so nim gas mich o" reading makes contextual sense as well, and I'd say greater sense in the context of the spell.

But from the perspective of attacking the VMS, most important is the "palden pbren". If the supposed meaning of "aror sheey" can be hinted by the context of "palden pbren", that would be a huge step forward.

@ Anton

1) What does 'gas mich' mean

2) aror sheey is an obvious quotation, whatever it means, followed by palden probiren/try it out soon and the beginning of a recipe, So nim/Now take

Aga, it's a "g" and many of them do not have straight backs. I have many examples of this style of "g". In fact, I found one that you can practically lay on top of the one on 116v and they match.

It is actually a formal style of "g" and not as common in cursive script (more casual script), but if a scribe has learned it, they sometimes use it when they write cursive.

Your example of "tz" does not match. Look at the gap on the top right. That is normal for "tz", but that gap is not seen in "g".


Here are some examples of "g" with a serif (sometimes straight, sometimes slightly down from the top), and with a long, often curved descender: