The Voynich Ninja

To me is does not matter where you saw omega or if you take the small or capital or cursive letter, the Greek word for egg is still 'ón'. 



correction:  my previous posting should have said:

But it is clear that Omega is NOT a Latin letter, that's why I looked at it from the Greek perspective which makes more sense.

davidsch Wrote:To me is does not matter where you saw omega or if you take the small or capital or cursive letter, the Greek word for egg is still 'ón'.

I think it does matter.

The odds of someone in the 15th century seeing or using the capital letter shape for Omega is quite low, as shown by my examples. Most scribes used the lowercase shape. Many monuments used the lowercase shape. The uppercase examples on monuments are very old and somewhat scarce.

When Greek alphabets were written in western manuscripts, they usually did not include the uppercase shape.

Unless they had actually studied Greek or visited or lived in Grecian lands or colonies, or paid attention to monuments that were not easy to access, the odds of someone in the 15th century using the uppercase shape is quite low.



So... either it isn't Omega, or the person who wrote it had knowledge of Greek shapes that the average person outside of Greece or the Greek colonies would not know or would be unlikely to choose.

This is not to meant to create confusion, but I found it an odd coincidence to bump into this book cover today:

[attachment=3660]

The reference is:
S. Bonaventura: Dialogo. 1502. Padova Bibl. Civica F.2370

The Gubbio ceramics from the early 16th century feature the IHS symbol and rays:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


As Koen pointed out, they can be quite stylized. If you scroll down through this link about halfway, you will see some of the old ceramics with this symbol and also one from Sicily that includes IHS, rays, and stars (note, it may not be as old as some of the others):

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


In Switzerland, IHS with rays is also found in 15th-century churches. One example:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Here is a monogram that is a little different, on an Aragonese vestment from c. 1420 (scroll down about halfway, it's on the right):

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The problem with such a discussion is that it goes from A to Z to Omega to IHS. It takes me too much time to comment properly, which I will not attempt.

@JKP. I state you are incorrect regarding capital Omega. What bold statements you make often, based on your own experience or knowledge but there are no references. Your Images from things, although very nice, are not proof of such. 
Your findings are probably based on LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. I have many Coptic and Greek manuscripts where Latin was NOT used. In those manuscripts Latin characters were very uncommon, but it does not mean that Latin was very uncommon in that period and place!

(10-11-2019, 02:23 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem with such a discussion is that it goes from A to Z to Omega to IHS. It takes me too much time to comment properly, which I will not attempt.

@JKP. I state you are incorrect regarding capital Omega. What bold statements you make often, based on your own experience or knowledge but there are no references. Your Images from things, although very nice, are not proof of such. 
Your findings are probably based on LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. I have many Coptic and Greek manuscripts where Latin was NOT used. In those manuscripts Latin characters were very uncommon, but it does not mean that Latin was very uncommon in that period and place!

David, I'm not sure what you mean. I think you might be completely misunderstanding my intention.

I only stated how it could be read in Latin because I see this as a brainstorming thread. I was not debating your post. I was adding to the list.

We don't know what it is, so I try to get out as many different ideas as possible. This way we have a record of all the possibilities, including how it would be read in Latin.

You stated the Greek interpretation, so I added the Latin one. If I can think of one in old Russian (which used a few of the Coptic Greek shapes, but not the exact same scribal conventions), I'll add that too. If there's one that works in Amharic, I'll add that too. It doesn't mean that I'm arguing against the Greek one, of course it's more likely to be in Greek if the Greek letter is used. But we should also include some of the possibilities that are a little less obvious.


I am not even convinced it is text. The person might have started drawing something in the middle and then changed his or her mind or was interrupted. But I believe in keeping an open mind and exploring the possibility that it is text.

I also have spent a lot of time looking at (and reading) Greek manuscripts. I can't read them very well, I only know a tiny bit of Greek, but if it's a subject I know, like plants or calendars, I can figure out a little more. I've spent a lot of time looking at plant labels in Greek and have translated many of them.

If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I argued FOR the idea that if it is Greek omega, then it would have to be someone more familiar with Greek culture than the average person. It was unusual for the uppercase omega to be used in the Middle Ages. The examples I posted from Greek manuscripts all used the lowercase form, not the uppercase form. This might be important! If it turned out to be omega, this might help localize the manuscript, because we happen to know where the significant Greek colonies were at the time.

Of course, if it's not omega, if it's a Leo symbol, or a drawing, or IHS, none of this will be relevant. THAT'S why I think it's important to get a LIST of ideas, so we have Plan B and Plan C and Plan D if Plan A doesn't work out. That's why I believe in brainstorming rather than forming theories too soon.

I must admit that I am mystified by the IHS idea as it seems highly tenuous, at best.

I find Nick Pelling's idea of the writing representing a date much more plausible, though I am by no means at all confident in that. I forget which precise year he suggests, but it us something like 1465(if Nick reads this I daresay he can tell which year it is.). He suggests the numbers have been rearranged as part of a mini cipher.

To me what we see looks something like:

41?r

If(big if) the last two join symbols represent two numeric digits then this could be something like->

4135

or

4125


Looking briefly online there seem to have been different representations of Arabic numerals in the medieval period, so it is hard to say in which possible ways the author might have written those numbers.

However the last two symbols, may not really be two and could also be symbols corresponding to letters or something else.

Even if we have four digits then what can we make of a number of the form 41** with the 4 underlined. Now, if, broadly speaking inline with Nick's suggestion, we can permute these digits such that our string becomes 14** suggesting a year in keeping with the 15th century dating then that would be interesting; where the underline indicates permutation is required. Of course, if this is true, the key question of importance is what the last two digits of the number must be, as any assistance with dating the Voynich would be invaluable.

All that I have written here is highly speculative, but arguably less speculative than the basis of this whole post.

I look at manuscripts every day and I can't see numbers in that squiggle other than maybe the shape for numeral 1. They didn't write 7 like a modern seven, it was written like an upside-down v or a slightly slanted upside-down v. The four was often written like this l.


[attachment=3672]

Sometimes when I look at it, it almost looks like they started with four vertical strokes and then added the rest, but I'm not even sure this is very likely. The "U" shape was probably written in a long stroke (or two strokes well connected since it's difficult to go against the direction of the quill without spattering).

Well to me it looks like a 4. Without a higher resolution scan I suppose we can't resolve what has been written there. From my research four was often written 4, though that was not the only way it could be written. I never suggested the numeral "7", though I am not sure that you are right that it looked quite as different from the modern 7 as you suggest.

Whether you look at manuscripts every day or not does not resolve the question of what that shape is, this is largely a visual question.

It is worth noting that according to some the "4" occurs often in the manuscript, if this is a 4 then it might be worth comparing with those examples i.e. 4o 4P etc.