Wiktenauer logo.png

Difference between revisions of "Page:MS Latin 11269 27r.jpg"

From Wiktenauer
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Page body (to be transcluded):Page body (to be transcluded):
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<br/>
 
<br/>
  
:<section begin="27r-b"/>{{par|b}} In cruce p{{dec|u|re}}validus p{{dec|u|ro}}priu{{dec|u|m}} tibi carpo mucrone{{dec|u|m}}.<br/>Hinc te iam mestu{{dec|u|m}} cesura cuspide sive<br/>P{{dec|u|er}}cutia{{dec|u|m}}. spät{{dec|u|a}}eq{{dec|u|ue}} manus attolle{{dec|u|re}} dicor<br/>Conträriu{{dec|u|m}}<ref>These umlaut-like dots appear on a few other pages, where they indicate words that should be read as a pair, but here the marked words are not the same case or number. Interestingly, on this page it looks like the dots were written by the original scribe (for example, the dots over the a in spataeque have the same faded look as the a). However, appearing on so few pages, these dots don't seem to be part of the overall orthographic style of the manuscript.</ref>. et valeo tua m{{dec|u|em}}bra ferire patent{{dec|u|er}}.<br/>Tange{{dec|u|re}} nec pot{{dec|u|er}}is ullis violatib{{dec|u|us}} ense{{dec|u|m}}.<section end="27r-b"/>
+
:<section begin="27r-b"/>{{par|b}} In cruce p{{dec|u|re}}validus p{{dec|u|ro}}priu{{dec|u|m}} tibi carpo mucrone{{dec|u|m}}.<br/>Hinc te iam mestu{{dec|u|m}} cesura cuspide sive<br/>P{{dec|u|er}}cutia{{dec|u|m}}. spät{{dec|u|a}}eq{{dec|u|ue}} manus attolle{{dec|u|re}} dicor<br/>Conträriu{{dec|u|m}}<ref>These umlaut-like dots appear on a few other pages, where they indicate words that should be read as a pair. Here the marked words are both part of a phrase naming a technique, similar to other times the dots appear. Interestingly, on this page it looks like the dots were written by the original scribe (for example, the dots over the a in spataeque have the same faded look as the a). However, appearing on so few pages, these dots don't seem to be part of the overall orthographic style of the manuscript.</ref>. et valeo tua m{{dec|u|em}}bra ferire patent{{dec|u|er}}.<br/>Tange{{dec|u|re}} nec pot{{dec|u|er}}is ullis violatib{{dec|u|us}} ense{{dec|u|m}}.<section end="27r-b"/>
  
<section begin="27r-c"/>{{par|r}} Te iacio i{{dec|u|n}} ter{{dec|u|r}}am magno/ que{{dec|u|m}} p{{dec|u|re}}cipis / actu<br/>Nec su{{dec|u|m}} decetus ense{{dec|u|m}} t{{dec|u|ibi}} ponere collo.<section end="27r-c"/>
+
<section begin="27r-c"/>{{par|r}} Te iacio i{{dec|u|n}} ter{{dec|u|r}}am magno/ que{{dec|u|m}} p{{dec|u|re}}cipis / actu<br/>Nec su{{dec|u|m}} deceptus ense{{dec|u|m}} t{{dec|u|ibi}} ponere collo.<section end="27r-c"/>

Latest revision as of 19:12, 2 January 2024

This page needs to be proofread.


In cruce prevalidus proprium tibi carpo mucronem.
Hinc te iam mestum cesura cuspide sive
Percutiam. spätaeque manus attollere dicor
Conträrium[1]. et valeo tua membra ferire patenter.
Tangere nec poteris ullis violatibus ensem.

Te iacio in terram magno/ quem precipis / actu
Nec sum deceptus ensem tibi ponere collo.

  1. These umlaut-like dots appear on a few other pages, where they indicate words that should be read as a pair. Here the marked words are both part of a phrase naming a technique, similar to other times the dots appear. Interestingly, on this page it looks like the dots were written by the original scribe (for example, the dots over the a in spataeque have the same faded look as the a). However, appearing on so few pages, these dots don't seem to be part of the overall orthographic style of the manuscript.