Quote:There are to be reproved those who swear by shameful creatures, likewise thinking themselves not bound, as when they say “pox grmt poxlaus zais”, since in such words the Creator of those things still shines forth. Those who swear falsely in this way are perjurers and sinners.

I further observe that even more reprehensible are those who swear by things which neither are nor ever will be, thinking themselves not bound, as those who say “sam mir pox gamiger gameri”.

1. The minced oath is already spelled with "x".
   
2. It is interpreted as swearing an oath, and the sin is false testimony, perjury. The message is: you shouldn't think you can get away with false promises by twisting the name of God.
   
3. It is understood as a mangled version of the name of the Creator.
   
4. It is also understood as the name of a creature, which means that they are aware of the "bock". Just like the "cock" in the English example mentioned earlier, "pot" in Dutch and "bleu" in French, the minced name of God drifted towards an existing "replacement" word.
   

1. If you want to read it as "God's liver", it is unlikely to be a cry of anger or frustration: the scribe is swearing a solemn oath by God's liver. Which formulations do we expect when swearing an oath, and what is the scribe's vow?
   
2. Swearing oaths like this was clearly done by people in the first half of the 15th century, but apparently frowned upon and mocked by the learned class. Would we expect this uncivilized form written by someone who has clearly had some education?
   
3. The spelling "x" over "cks" is likely inspired by this oath-usage, but awareness of the animal was present in the oath. Since spelling was not standardized, would we not rather expect the ingredient in the VM?