20-07-2023, 07:55 PM
Whether "pox" is a "sounds similar" substitute for "god's" (like saying fudge instead of f*ck), or refers to the devil, the result for us is the same, namely that in that case someone wrote an expletive on the page. Whether they use "pox" to avoid saying the holy name of God or the frightening name of the Devil is irrelevant to our purpose.
What is relevant, is that "pox" is a perfectly valid equivalent of "bock's", namely a male goat's (liver).
If someone wanted to get to the bottom of this (a rare occurrence, but you never know), what would have to be checked is the following:
Did German scribes of the 15th century ever replace /ks/ sounds with [x] at the ends of German words? Did they ever do so for infinitives of words ending in a /k/-sound? When did they use [x] to begin with? When did this practice start? In the case of "pox", do any examples exist from the 15th century, the time of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. inscription?
Before we know this, we cannot favor the expletive reading in my opinion. The ingredient reading should get preference given the presence of "so nim" on the same page.
What is relevant, is that "pox" is a perfectly valid equivalent of "bock's", namely a male goat's (liver).
If someone wanted to get to the bottom of this (a rare occurrence, but you never know), what would have to be checked is the following:
Did German scribes of the 15th century ever replace /ks/ sounds with [x] at the ends of German words? Did they ever do so for infinitives of words ending in a /k/-sound? When did they use [x] to begin with? When did this practice start? In the case of "pox", do any examples exist from the 15th century, the time of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. inscription?
Before we know this, we cannot favor the expletive reading in my opinion. The ingredient reading should get preference given the presence of "so nim" on the same page.