16-05-2019, 09:11 PM
16-05-2019, 09:11 PM
16-05-2019, 09:13 PM
Quote:JKP: Again, I think you miss my point. The question I am concerned with is not the function of a symbol, but rather what a symbol looks like visually. From my point of view the question I am interested in this context is if the Voynich "8" is visually speaking an "8", not what the function of the symbol "8" has.
If you take the context of the diplomatic ciphers that I am interested in then in general the symbols meanings don't correspond to external meanings, so my own interests are in visual identification.
But that's not what you said. You didn't say the shape was more like modern 8 than anything else, you said this:
Quote: Mark Knowles: ...though I think one can have some degree of confidence that an "8" is an "8"...
You said you were confident that "8" was "8". That's quite a different statement. We can not be confident that "8" was "8" because it was also medieval "s" and medieval "d".
If you only care about the shape, why didn't you say, "I would like to transcribe the d as "8" for my visual-similarity system." Then we would know what you were talking about.
16-05-2019, 09:35 PM
(16-05-2019, 09:11 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark, most definitely YOU are the one missing the point.
The d shape in the Voynich MS looks quite like how the characters d and s are written in many medieval manuscripts.
That is: visually.
Just look at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the MS for examples.
Rene, there is no need for block capitals. Yes, but that is not relevant. I am trying to establish in this thread what the shape looks like, not whether there are characters corresponding to other letters in other manuscripts that resemble that character. Whether the letters d and s are drawn like that is really outside of the area I am focusing on, so not relevant. I am focusing on how the shapes look visually independent of where else we see the shape.
So, with all due respect again you did miss my point.
16-05-2019, 09:40 PM
Quote:Mark Knowles wrote: "I am focusing on how the shapes look visually independent of where else we see the shape."
So what you really mean is "I am focusing on how the shapes look visually in modern scripts independent of where else we see the shape."
Well why don't you say that? Otherwise we will assume you are talking about the period in which the VMS was created. In the 15th century 8 = "d" "s" and "8".
16-05-2019, 09:40 PM
16-05-2019, 09:43 PM
(16-05-2019, 09:13 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:JKP: Again, I think you miss my point. The question I am concerned with is not the function of a symbol, but rather what a symbol looks like visually. From my point of view the question I am interested in this context is if the Voynich "8" is visually speaking an "8", not what the function of the symbol "8" has.
If you take the context of the diplomatic ciphers that I am interested in then in general the symbols meanings don't correspond to external meanings, so my own interests are in visual identification.
But that's not what you said. You didn't say the shape was more like modern 8 than anything else, you said this:
Quote: Mark Knowles: ...though I think one can have some degree of confidence that an "8" is an "8"...
You said you were confident that "8" was "8". That's quite a different statement. We can not be confident that "8" was "8" because it was also medieval "s" and medieval "d".
If you only care about the shape, why didn't you say, "I would like to transcribe the d as "8" for my visual-similarity system." Then we would know what you were talking about.
The whole thread as I have already made clear is about visual similarity. It follows logically that the same applies to the "8".
I was discussing the "8" in passing as Helmut referred to it, but in this thread my focus is on the gallows characters, as I have made clear, so I don't want to get too sidetracked by focusing specifically on the "8" other than as part of the general point being discussed.
16-05-2019, 09:54 PM
JKP: I am not focusing on how it looks in modern scripts. I am focusing on how it looks independent of any scripts. The reason for using this modern script that I am using now is that it is the default and also is that in the context of the "4" shape and "8" it seems sufficiently consistent. If one wants to get really specific it essentially is about identifying if a shape is a right angled triangle (i.e. the triangle from the "4" shape.) It doesn't matter which script the triangle is in.
What does a right angled triangle look like? That is visually independent of any manuscript.
(16-05-2019, 09:40 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-05-2019, 09:35 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am trying to establish in this thread what the shape looks like, not whether there are characters corresponding to other letters in other manuscripts that resemble that character.
????
What does a right angled triangle look like? That is visually independent of any manuscript.
16-05-2019, 09:58 PM
A triangle, circle etc. are shapes independent of fonts or scripts or languages or which every manuscript they are drawn in.
The "4" shape is a right angled triangle with two of the sides extended passed the right angle.
This is what I mean by visual appearance of shapes. We can define an "8" shape similarly.
The "4" shape is a right angled triangle with two of the sides extended passed the right angle.
This is what I mean by visual appearance of shapes. We can define an "8" shape similarly.
16-05-2019, 10:17 PM
What some people have said, e.g. Anton, seems to imply that they don't think the "triangle" of the "4" is the shape that the author was trying to draw.
16-05-2019, 10:30 PM
I have wasted more than enough time with this :-)