The ONLY place where the two voynichese words of the sentence in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. can be seen exactly in the same combination is the eighth paragraph of f104r. I have found this “reading” carefully the entire manuscript page-by-page and “word”-by-“word”. When a Voynich Query Processor appeared on
the Internet he gave me the same result.But there is something more interesting. Taking exactly the crosses and the words between them, the two
words are in the same place in both sentences(I exclude the cross above “maria”). For more clarity, see the PDF file below.Whether it can be used
and how I leave it to the specialists.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Milen Chakarov
22.07.2017
I have created a transcript and a concordance of every glyph in the manuscript, so I of course looked for the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. text in the rest of the manuscript, and René Z has also pointed out, a few months ago on the forum, that it appears on a nymph page.
So, the observation is not new, but interpretations of what it might mean are always welcome. It's a rare instance of marginalia incorporating the main text—the only place that potentially gives it some context in an environment with non-Voynich text and thus is certainly of interest.
As for it appearing in the same position... I would agree that the cross above Maria has an "added-in" look to it, like an afterthought, but as soon as one makes a subjective judgment as to whether it belongs or not when considering if the positions match, one has to be careful and can't really make that judgment until more corroboration is found.
I don't remember reading about this before (I think I missed Rene's post).
The alignment between the two paragraphs seems interesting also.
I can't find the link to the announced "article" though?
Moved to Marginalia.
I pointed out two years ago that the only folio where
aror sheey is found beside You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is f104r. But when we have the Job's tool it's not that difficult to find it out.
I suppose, the novelty proposed by Milen (welcome to the forum!) is not that
aror sheey is found elsewhere, but that it is found in the particular place of the sentence. In other words, the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. sequence is considered as a decyphering attempt of the particular block of Voynichese text.
The main counter-arguments would be, of course, that: 1) the matching is not on a line-by-line basis, 2) there are no crosses in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (unless we can highlight some glyphs or glyph sequences to represent crosses).
Also, to take one example, if there is a direct correspondence than qokaiw = the mysterious oladaba8 and qokaiw appears more than 3000 times in the corpus. A word that popular should be more recognisable.
The same word is then repeated in the next box, but with a substantially different michtonese word beneath.
Still, it's an interesting angle that warrants further investigation.
Quote:Also, to take one example, if there is a direct correspondence than qokaiw = the mysterious oladaba8 and qokaiw appears more than 3000 times in the corpus. A word that popular should be more recognisable.
Technically, that's not a good objection, because, if we consider You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. as a deciphering attempt, we are not sure beforehand that the attempt has been successful. Instead, judging by the presence of some obscure words such as "oladabas" or "pbrey" it would have been quite unsuccessful. So "oladabas" may be just the (poor) result of the decryption process utilizing a slightly wrong algorithm or slightly wrong initial conditions. However, this trail of assunption would leave the question open: why, while boldly deciphering
qokain into messy "oladabas", the guy did not venture to decipher
aror sheey, albeit in something as messy?
He was trying a block paradigm with an Alexander romance and those words didn't fit.
Seriously though, I would also consider a scenario where the marginalia writer did in fact not understand the Voynichese words he wrote. In that case, an attempted deciphering is likely.
How he'd have gotten from the Voynichese text to those words is beyond me though. A simple substitution would clearly be off the table...
I think the similarity in the location might be a coincidence. I don’t use the Takahashi transcription, I use my own, and aror appears 8 times (possibly 9) in a variety of line positions. It's true that only the two are followed by EVA-sheey but whether that creates a meaningful connection to the one on the last page is difficult to know.
Instances of
aror:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. 3:5:7 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. 3:10:9 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. 5:5:9 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. middle of the last line
102v2 (difficult to read, it might be oror)
104r 8:2:4
106r 8:1:6
106r 8:2:10
116v beginning of last line
It also occurs numerous times with prefixes and suffixes and, once again, it's difficult to know what their relationship is to the "base" word since we don't know for certain that spaces are real.