(03-05-2021, 01:16 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-05-2021, 12:30 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.About "probiren", this would be an infinitive used in imperative form.

What would be "balden" prepended to that?

I note that one of my proposed interpretations above indeed analysed "probiren" as an infinitive used in imperative form:

"Sobald [sie] **irour geth** [haben], probiren, so nimm gas mich"

Meaning "As soon as [you have] suffered anger/wrath, try it, then cast/take me quickly"

(03-05-2021, 01:16 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-05-2021, 12:30 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.About "probiren", this would be an infinitive used in imperative form.

What would be "balden" prepended to that?

I don't know about "balden", this is really something for the German experts. Coincidentally, I searched for "balden" in a corpus and the word "probirten" (tried) was near. I don't know what balden means here. Hope this link works: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


My impression is that "balden" is an adverb here and the -en is a different one than the infinitive -en of probiren.
"Balden finden" also appears in the corpus, which I assume means "to find swiftly", adverb + infinitive.

For balden, Lexer gives:

I. balt werden, eilen
II.  = belden, i.e. balt machen

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

@Koen
der viel u. offt probirten Cur, d. grosse unerleidl. Schmertzen balden zu stillen, ...

"Der viel und oft probierten Kur, dass grosse unerleidliche (unerträgliche) Schmerzen bald zu stillen.

"The much and often tried cure, that great unpleasant (unbearable) pain soon to be stilled.

I already regret getting back into this discussion again  

This should not be about proving or disproving whether <proposed unlikely reading> is or is not possible, but about finding a good reading of the text.

The majority of people writing here, myself very specifically included, are not qualified for that.

1) palden is  GER 'bald' (meaning in the near future), palden probiren means 'in der nächsten Zukunft ausprobieren/to try out in the near future, it is normal MHD vocabulary and use, the last line of 116v is a Voynihese term, whih looks like a quotation to me, a declaration of intention and the beginning of a recipe. About 'probirren': the 116v writer leaves out vocals, a normal medieval way of encryption/abbreviation, as I have said before. in this case he leaves ot the loop for the pro-abbr.

2) The gas reading is wrong, there is written geis

As far as I remember I have posted all this before in this thread, but why the hell should anybody read them posts if he has his own theory based on no knowledge. As I have said before, if you don't believe me, get someone qualified to judge (and I mean qualified). And Rene is not the only one regretting to have entered the 116v discussion again

So much regret for one thread.

To be clear, I remain agnostic about what these lines mean. There is simply not enough.

(03-05-2021, 03:30 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I remember I have posted all this before in this thread, but why the hell should anybody read them posts if he has his own theory based on no knowledge. As I have said before, if you don't believe me, get someone qualified to judge (and I mean qualified). And Rene is not the only one regretting to have entered the 116v discussion again

There's a serious methodological flaw here, and as soon as it is expressed by more than one person in this thread, I think I should elaborate in more detail that which I already briefly wrote before. Scientific discussion is not a matter of belief. Period. There's good room for trust, as when an expert in the field expresses his or her opinion to the general public, then s/he is trusted based on his or her reputation in the assumption that s/he is not engaging in tomfoolery (unfortunately, that is also too often the case in "sensitive" fields such as economics or history). But trust is not belief, these are two different things. When the said expert is asked to substantiate his or her opinion, s/he would do that based on argument that could be independently assessed. If a mathematician brings forward a theorem, everybody can follow the proof for himself. If a physicist brings forward a law, everybody can perform experiment to see if the law holds. And so on. Linguistics and paleography are not exceptions.

But it is somehow strangely different in this thread where the (pseudo)-argument is one's "qualification", and on that grounds one should be believed or not.

It is quite, quite strange to tell me that "gas" is not MHD, while Lexer says exactly the opposite. Should I "believe" Mathias Lexer or Helmut Winkler? I'm really dubious.

It's strange to tell me that it is written "geis", not "gas", when I can see with my own eyes - and everybody can, - that this is not "ei", but the most typical "a" of this whole folio. One needs not be "qualified" to be able to compare different letters on the same sheet, one just does not have to be blind. If you consider that this is "ei" then please show me how it is. I took the trouble a couple of days ago and showed how, in my opinion, this entire word is written.

One says this "gasmich" (indeed, it is written so) means "geismilch". On what grounds is this assertion? Where's the comparative analysis that would allow to insist that this is true? Maybe there are examples indeed, and that is just great, then they should be referenced. I asked the question on RG a year ago and got none. Nobody else has asked, I think.

One says, this is "probiren". Where's the argument? Are there any examples where probiren is abbreviated as pbren? Maybe there are, and that would be just excellent, but they should be referenced.

The difference is that one brings forwards an idea for discussion, elaborately describing its pros and cons and seeking for critique, the other one brings forward an idea as a matter of proved fact, turning a blind eye on any critique on the pretext that others are not "qualified".

Argument must go first and foremost.

(03-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If a mathematician brings forward a theorem, everybody can follow the proof for himself.

Anton, unfortunately this statement is false. It's even more false for physics and completely false for linguistics, biology, history, etc.

(03-05-2021, 04:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Should I "believe" Mathias Lexer or Helmut Winkler? I'm really dubious.

The VMS is unique outstanding unit. So the best way is to believe in arguments and intuition.

gas is a contraction of gahes, that there is a lemma in Lexer does not mean anything.

I am not very good in beliefing things and I don't really trust experts until they can show how tings are working and I don't think much of formal qualifcations, that is why I advised you to get someone with a qualifiation you accept

There really is geis, even if you can't see it and the l in milch is an addition whih gives sense to a reading that otherwise  does not make sense, that is normal editorial praxis, you do the same thing, only your emendations, contrary to the geis milch readings do not make much sense. The same with probiren, it comes from what the writer/sribe is doing on 116v, i.e. leaving out vowels and probiren is always abbr. pbren, only the loop on the very small descender of the p is missing in this case. As a matter of factI I think that  is the solution to the rest of the problems of 116v like oladabas and anchiton