Codex Ambrosianus A, Gothic Calendar incipit
Status: not verified but unambiguous.
This reading is problematic. For a detailed discussion, see Landau 2006. Based on close observation of the manuscript (using digital image processing) and reflection on the interpretation of fruma jiuleis ·l·, the author argues that there is no naubaimbair in the original manuscript. The dubious reading seems to go back to Massmann (1833) and is missing in the editio princeps (1819). On a photograph of the facsimile edition, at most BAIR can reasonably be discerned.
For the moment being, our e-text sticks to the traditional reading, not necessarily because we believe it is the correct interpretation, but for the sake of consistency (at this stage — 2006 — the interim goal is a tagged transcription of Streitberg's text).
Status: not verified but unambiguous.
Status: not verified but unambiguous.
This token was not recognized automatically. It is probably a number, abbreviation or spelling variant and will be tagged manually later on.