- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
- [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
-
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
ThomasCoon > 10-07-2016, 07:07 PM
(10-07-2016, 04:10 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually it's not easy to decide between goat and lamb. For the goat, it lacks horns, and for the lamb, the tail speaks against it. And the depiction is awkward in itself. However, abomasum fits both options well, because both goats and lambs belong to ruminants.
I interpreted the curly lines around the animal's head as horns, but you're right that they don't look like typical goat horns. They could also be ears. It's not easy to decide, as you say.
I'm reading the third and fourth articles you posted, by the way. Will post later today (in American EST time) -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
Koen G > 10-07-2016, 08:28 PM
There are sheep that have tails like that.. Here's a lamb for you:
![[Image: lambtaildown.jpg]](http://www.sheep101.info/Images/lambtaildown.jpg)
Though ultimately I agree that the image is too small and unclear to really pin anything down. It's a good idea to keep both options open. -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
ThomasCoon > 10-07-2016, 11:27 PM
(08-07-2016, 05:03 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thx in advance!
Regarding your 3rd and 4th article Anton:
I agree with you 100% that these words are probably German. They use almost exactly the same orthography as the German Codex Sangallensis 754, down to the tails of certain letters ("n" in valden), ligatures (ch), and the style of the characters. I don't know if other medieval languages also used this "font", but almost every feature of the uncoded words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. clearly can be found in the German Cod. Sang.:
As for the meaning of "valden ubren so nim gas mich":
1) valden:
I'm not sure about the last three letters in valden - but if they are -den:
The online Lexers dictionary entry for "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." gives the alternative Middle High German form "valden" - both are present-day "falten" (to fold). If you are looking for some instructions how to apply the spell (wear it on your neck, say three Ave Marias, etc.), then folding something may be an instruction. My paperback copy of Lexers dictionary (33rd edition) confirms that valten / valden are verbs that can mean NHD falten (to fold), zusammenfalten (fold together), or verschränken (to interlace or cross, e.g. arms / fingers / legs or sides of paper)
2) ubren (maybe obren?):
Here are two possibilities:
a) Lexer's entry for the adjective "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." gives the variant uber. In Mittelhochdeutsch it was not uncommon for an unstressed vowel in the middle of a word to be elided. So "uberen" (the above parts) could appear as "uberen", "ubren" or "ubern" (here is one example of "ubern" in Herbort von Fritzlar's "Liet von Troye", line You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). So "valden ubren" might be "fold the upper part(s)" - NHD falt(en) den oberen.
b) There is only one use of "ubren" that I could find in MHD, a contraction of "uber den": "und wirf jn ubren fûß" (and throw it over the foot) in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. So "valden ubren" could mean "fold over it" (NHD falten über den).
3) so nim gas mich
a) "so" = "in solchem Grade" / "in solcher Weise" (in such a way) according to Lexer. I agree with you that this is obviously the meaning of the word.
b) "nim" = the command form of "nemen" (to take) - I agree with you about this word also. No other possibility is presenting itself to me.
c) "gasmich" together doesn't sound like any word I recognize in NHD or MHD, and you are right that Lexer's dictionary comes up with nothing. Your hypothesis about "gâs" meaning quickly and "mich" meaning me seems logical. The form "mich" was used since the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. onwards, so no problem there.
The only other possibility I can think of is that German has always had a tendency to lose nasal consonants in the middle of words ("You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." and "gās" are documented dialectal forms of Gans). This is a well-known rule in historical German linguistics. But if the first part is "gans", then I don't know what to do with "mich" - it can't be "milch" because that doesn't come from a goose. So, I don't know - right now my best guess is to agree with you about "gas mich."
I am definitely no expert in MHD (that was not my focus), but if a professor with more experience in MHD looked at the text, I'm very hopeful that we could find a solution. There are many MHD variants and conventions that I am just not aware of, but a person with more MHD experience may know immediately. -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
Anton > 11-07-2016, 12:32 AM
Thank you for your comments!
I'm not very good in (Middle High) German grammar, so please correct me if I'm wrong in the following considerations.
Suppose it reads "valden ubren". Now, if "ubren" expands as "uber den", then we should expect some noun in genitive after "den", since "den" is an article. We cannot expect this noun to be encoded by aror sheey, because a construct like "this object fold (it) over the" is not natural for German language. And neither we have any noun following "den".
Now, therefore, this "ubren" does not stand for "uber den".
But could it stand just for "over" (without any article)? If so, would the reverse word order like "this object fold over" (in the meaning "fold (it) over this object") be fine for German? In Russian this would not be against the rules; albeit does not sound very natural, but would be OK e.g. in the poetic verse.
Suppose it is "uber", but subject to declension. Which case, then?
Actually I'm trying to find possibilities for the scenario where aror sheey denotes some object, over which one needs to fold the paper with the spell.
There are some arguments against such a scenario though. The object would be necessarily a small one, because to fold paper over some large object, such as part of a body, you need a huge sheet of paper (not a spell, but rather a newspaper). Next, if aror sheey stands for an object, then we are left in the dark as to the purpose of the spell. Fold me over aror sheey, then take me quickly... und so weiter?
Quote:but if a professor with more experience in MHD looked at the text, I'm very hopeful that we could find a solution
Me too. I've long been wandering why no MHD expert is interested in the Voynich Manuscript.
Also, mind that if "valden" stands for "falten", it is infinitive, not imperative. So it is not "fold it over!", but, at most, "to fold over".
Can we imagine a context in which infinitive would be appropriate? Russian Wikipedia page suggests that in MHD, and especially in AHD, infinitive was somewhat more flexibly used than it is nowadays. -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
ThomasCoon > 11-07-2016, 12:57 AM
(11-07-2016, 12:32 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you for your comments!
I'm not very good in (Middle High) German grammar, so please correct me if I'm wrong in the following considerations.
Suppose it reads "valden ubren". Now, if "ubren" expands as "uber den", then we should expect some noun in genitive after "den", since "den" is an article. We cannot expect this noun to be encoded by aror sheey, because a construct like "this object fold (it) over the" is not natural for German language. And neither we have any noun following "den".
Now, therefore, this "ubren" does not stand for "uber den".
But could it stand just for "over" (without any article)? If so, would the reverse word order like "this object fold over" (in the meaning "fold (it) over this object") be fine for German? In Russian this would not be against the rules; albeit does not sound very natural, but would be OK e.g. in the poetic verse.
Suppose it is "uber", but subject to declension. Which case, then?
Because "falten" is a motion (folding implies moving things), uber could take accusative case, and "den" is an accusative article. In German, an article like "den" can stand without a noun ("Hast du den Ball?" - "Ja, ich habe den im Auto") but only if the noun is clearly understood and already mentioned. If the aror sheey is something like "find a table / stream / cross / Bible", and the next direction is "fold (this spell paper) over it", then "ubern" as "über den" might make sense. But I personally think that option A is correct - that "ubern" is an elided "uberen/oberen."
Quote:Actually I'm trying to find possibilities for the scenario where aror sheey denotes some object, over which one needs to fold the paper with the spell.
There are some arguments against such a scenario though. The object would be necessarily a small one, because to fold paper over some large object, such as part of a body, you need a huge sheet of paper (not a spell, but rather a newspaper). Next, if aror sheey stands for an object, then we are left in the dark as to the purpose of the spell. Fold me over aror sheey, then take me quickly... und so weiter?
If it is a small and thin piece of paper (even the size of a fortune cookie slip), you could fold it length-wise several times. But I agree that the translation wouldn't make much sense. "find a table, and fold (the spell) over it, and then take me quickly" is simply nonsensical.
So I guess we hunt down a MHD professor. I don't want to bother my old German department because I don't want to give them more work.
Quote:Also, mind that if "valden" stands for "falten", it is infinitive, not imperative. So it is not "fold it over!", but, at most, "to fold over".
Can we imagine a context in which infinitive would be appropriate? Russian Wikipedia page suggests that in MHD, and especially in AHD, infinitive was somewhat more flexibly used than it is nowadays.
In a set of instructions, the infinitive is often used in German. If you own any equipment in Russia that comes with multilingual instructions, you can see this on the German pages: "(1) den Kopierer anschalten. (2) das Papier auf die Glasoberfläche legen. (3) den Start-Knopf drücken." -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
Anton > 11-07-2016, 01:04 AM
Quote:But I personally think that option A is correct - that "ubern" is an elided "uberen/oberen."
And this "uberen" is accusative?
Also, Lexer You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that valde is past tense (if I understand correctly) of vellen. Can anything be made out of this? -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
ThomasCoon > 11-07-2016, 01:51 AM
(11-07-2016, 01:04 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:But I personally think that option A is correct - that "ubern" is an elided "uberen/oberen."
And this "uberen" is accusative?
Also, Lexer You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that valde is past tense (if I understand correctly) of vellen. Can anything be made out of this?
Yes - "en" is the accusative masculine adjective ending - or "valden uberen" is really "vald den uberen" (fold the upper part - Middle High German can run two words together in this way) and "den uberen" is accusative.
I'll look into the vellen thing and get back to you -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
Koen G > 11-07-2016, 07:33 AM
The -en thing can still be sern in some petrified accusatives in modern Dutch. For example, 'achter' means behind, and 'naar achteren' means towards the back. This is just a remnant from when the Germanic languages still used more cases.
Also like Dolo says, the infinitive form is and was often the same as an imperative form.
So gramatically I don't see a problem. Valden also seems like a form that could once have existed in Germanic dialects. Modern Dutch fold is 'vouwen', and 'al' often changed into 'ou'.
I wouldn't focus too much on one Germanic 'language' by the way. So many spelling variations and dialects existed! -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
Searcher > 11-07-2016, 10:22 AM
(11-07-2016, 12:57 AM)Dolokhov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Because "falten" is a motion (folding implies moving things), uber could take accusative case, and "den" is an accusative article. In German, an article like "den" can stand without a noun ("Hast du den Ball?" - "Ja, ich habe den im Auto") but only if the noun is clearly understood and already mentioned. If the aror sheey is something like "find a table / stream / cross / Bible", and the next direction is "fold (this spell paper) over it", then "ubern" as "über den" might make sense. But I personally think that option A is correct - that "ubern" is an elided "uberen/oberen."
Quote:Actually I'm trying to find possibilities for the scenario where aror sheey denotes some object, over which one needs to fold the paper with the spell.
There are some arguments against such a scenario though. The object would be necessarily a small one, because to fold paper over some large object, such as part of a body, you need a huge sheet of paper (not a spell, but rather a newspaper). Next, if aror sheey stands for an object, then we are left in the dark as to the purpose of the spell. Fold me over aror sheey, then take me quickly... und so weiter?
If it is a small and thin piece of paper (even the size of a fortune cookie slip), you could fold it length-wise several times. But I agree that the translation wouldn't make much sense. "find a table, and fold (the spell) over it, and then take me quickly" is simply nonsensical.
Does it make sense if aror sheey is a part of the sentence in the first person (I do, I will etc.)?
Could valden or valten be interpreted as walten?
Thanks in advance. -
RE: [split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov
Anton > 11-07-2016, 01:18 PM
Quote:Does it make sense if aror sheey is a part of the sentence in the first person (I do, I will etc.)?
Technically it does, but in such case it is not clear why would the author encrypt this portion. In my blog post, I suggested some options which could explain encryption:
Quote:
- quantitative characteristic, like “three times” or “seven days”;
- qualitative modus operandi, like “wear on the neck”;
- name of the disease, like “against delirium tremens”.
Quote:Could valden or valten be interpreted as walten?
I posed the same question You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I think that deserves attention, although in that case we would again have the reverse order of words, like "<this object> rule over" instead of "rule over <this object>".
As to the vellen stuff. The Lexer article, among other things, refers to Kaiserchronik (edition 1849, available free at Google Books) with its following verse (p. 385):
Quote:Er hiez in vieder werfen.
des enmaht im niemen gehelsen.
do vorte man in gesailet.
dem man was vertailet.
andem buche. unt andem ruke.
si worsen in ab der bruke.
zedes wages grunde.
do valten in di sunde.
(I changed "u" to "v" in the beginning of words for convenience).
Although the meaning of the whole verse flees from me, we have here "valten", which is much the same as "valden", and if I'm not mistaken, "do valten in di sunde" means "then fell into sin". - quantitative characteristic, like “three times” or “seven days”;