Cheshire also said the zodiac labels were "written in conventional Italics".
That's bullwhacky. It's Gothic script.
Nooooo look at this. He says about "d"
"It is an unfamiliar symbol to the Latin eye, as it has North African origins in the nuun symbol. The Arabic influence on the Romance languages is often neglected due to the Eurocentric historic view of linguistics."
It's a ****ing eight, Gerard. We call them Arabic numerals.
I can't recommend that that much time should be spent on this...
Of course, reading the paper has a certain amusement value, but mind your blood pressures.
(15-05-2019, 10:07 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't recommend that that much time should be spent on this...
Of course, reading the paper has a certain amusement value, but mind your blood pressures.
I closed the tab after my previous post, I got to page 9. I can't handle this.
Oy, I just read the part about "The Second Manuscript" two times to try to understand his argument, but it makes no sense at all.
It's full of convoluted generalizations that make it sound like he doesn't really know anything about medieval scripts and simply looked up a few things to try to make an argument.
(15-05-2019, 10:06 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nooooo look at this. He says about "d"
"It is an unfamiliar symbol to the Latin eye, as it has North African origins in the nuun symbol. The Arabic influence on the Romance languages is often neglected due to the Eurocentric historic view of linguistics."
It's a ****ing eight, Gerard. We call them Arabic numerals.
Yes, it's a numeral, a normal numeral for the time. In fact, they had been using this form of 8 in Latin manuscripts in Europe since the 12th century.
It is also a normal "d" in some medieval scripts, and a normal "s" in some medieval scripts. There is absolutely no reason to stretch to some obscure African reference to explain it and it's absurd that he would call it "unfamiliar... to the Latin eye". Utterly uninformed and false.
Oh, sorry. I've failed. The months there were subsequent adds. :-(
Mistery unresolved yet. Maybe.
(15-05-2019, 09:30 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (15-05-2019, 08:53 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many people have. It is now available freely.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.&
Gems like this are rare:
Gerard Cheshire Wrote:Figure 60 shows a detail from an official letter by Alfonso V, for comparison with De Rosa. It reads: Alfonsus dei gracia Rex Aragome (Alfonzo of the gracious, King of Aragon: Italian, Spanish, Old Portuguese)
Of course the fragment reads "Alfonsus dei gratia Rex Aragonum" and the translation is Alfonse, King of the Aragonese, by the grace of God. It is not "Italian, Spanish, Old Portuguese" but plain and simple Latin.
The fact that the guy cannot read the final -um, where the macron appears as a curl-like ligature, is not surprising: he also fails to correctly interpret the macrons in the VMS month names.
That he interprets the obvious Latin "dei" (of God) as the Italian "dei" (of the) is pure genius 
What's worse is that this guy is English. The motto he's struggling with isn't even some historical curiosity in England. If he has even looked at a coin in his life he would see "ELIZABETH II DEI GRA REG" stamped on it. Every school child is taught what the inscription on a coin means: Elizabeth II, queen by the grace of god.
It's now also being picked up by the media over here. This is going to be more mediatized than any previous solution since Cheshire is promoting it assertively.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
With a link to JKP
I wonder when Lisa Fagin Davis's research is coming out?
Be very interesting to read. I have strong opinions on a few glyphs.