[split] Discussion of f116v interpretations by Anton Alipov

[ThomasCoon]

OK, that's important. But anyway written examples would be confirmative, without them "mi(l)ch" is just a working hypothesis.

That's fair. I don't know any MHG texts that have "mich" for "Milch" but will definitely look. In the meantime, it will remain a working hypothesis.

So "gas" can be "goose", or it can be a domestic goat. My vote is for goose: first, because this seems to be a more widespread option, second because we already have "pox" in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (no matter if it relates to goat or to God, it ultimately comes from the goat), so why use "gas" to designate a goat instead of "pox" (unless one wants to get some milk from it, of course)? But let's not touch the choice between the two. For now, it's sufficient to understand that "gas" is a domestic animal.

That is a good point - only a "Geis" can produce "Milch". I didn't even realize that a "Pock" couldn't!

Der waggelt met der Maul wie en Gans-arsch

"He wags his tongue like a goose's Arsch" = He talks a lot.

It's an interesting theory! I won't comment because I think Helmut and other native speakers are more qualified. It is definitely not impossible - Goethe himself wrote "leck mich am Arsch". Personally I still side with "milch" because it fits semantically, grammatically, and dialectally, but who knows.

I don't remember any German stories involving the backside of the goose, but maybe another Germanicist does.

One argument against the ass is that "Misch" for "ass" is Northern, while, as I understand, "gas" for "goose" is Southern?!

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous about this: Helmut said that "gas" for "geis" (goat) is southern, but "gas" for "gans" (goose) can be anywhere (as -JKP- mentioned).