30-04-2020, 03:39 AM
30-04-2020, 03:39 AM
30-04-2020, 08:54 AM
Wasn't Rugg's qualification something similar? Yet we don't rubbish that.
30-04-2020, 09:50 AM
I have been fairly vocal about the fact that Rugg's system does not effectively reproduce VMS text.
My purpose in writing these critiques is not to disparage people. It's to encourage good research and to point out problems with methodology so that others don't make the same mistakes.
The problem on the Internet is that if something substandard, or even outright incorrect is posted (especially by someone with lots of letters behind their names), and no one says anything, then people take it as gospel, copy it without critical evaluation, and replicate and perpetuate bad information VERY QUICKLY through the Internet.
Anything that can mitigate or slow down the viral dissemination of bad information should at least be attempted.
My purpose in writing these critiques is not to disparage people. It's to encourage good research and to point out problems with methodology so that others don't make the same mistakes.
The problem on the Internet is that if something substandard, or even outright incorrect is posted (especially by someone with lots of letters behind their names), and no one says anything, then people take it as gospel, copy it without critical evaluation, and replicate and perpetuate bad information VERY QUICKLY through the Internet.
Anything that can mitigate or slow down the viral dissemination of bad information should at least be attempted.
30-04-2020, 10:05 AM
Hey look, I'm on your side there. It's just the treatment of the two similar qualifications that seems inconsistent to me.
Perhaps I am wrong.
Perhaps I am wrong.
30-04-2020, 10:13 AM
Just recently, either here or on Pelling's blog, I stated rather loudly that Rugg's prefix/root/suffix system is wrong, wrong, wrong. I've also described the problems with the system in more detail in my long paper, but I haven't posted it yet. I will soon.
The only thing Hyde and Rugg's system proves is that meaningless text can be generated quickly. It proves nothing about the VMS text since the output has only a minor and superficial resemblance to VMS text, most of which is an artifact of the generating system.
The only thing Hyde and Rugg's system proves is that meaningless text can be generated quickly. It proves nothing about the VMS text since the output has only a minor and superficial resemblance to VMS text, most of which is an artifact of the generating system.
01-05-2020, 09:31 AM
01-05-2020, 01:04 PM
I'm not sure he pays attention to what other people have said or written about the VMS. He seems to be off on his own journey, using his own ideas (many of which are historically inaccurate) and a lot of nonstandard terminology.
I'm not sure a researcher would WANT to be credited in his papers since it would make it look like some of the wrong information came from the person cited. Being credited is not always an advantage.
As it is, I'm not even sure the plant ID of Paris quadrifolia is correct, as you can see from my comments. It's called Paris quadrifolia because it has four leaves and everyone in the Middle Ages drew it with four leaves. The VMS plant has 10 leaves. No one accidentally adds 6 leaves, so either it's a different plant or the illustrator was trying to express something different about plants (or about something else).
If it's not a correct ID, then whether there is credit or not will eventually become a moot point. It might be Paris (or Trientalis, or a number of other plants)... but it is not drawn like P. quadrifolia and it is most certainly not Aconitum.
I'm not sure a researcher would WANT to be credited in his papers since it would make it look like some of the wrong information came from the person cited. Being credited is not always an advantage.
As it is, I'm not even sure the plant ID of Paris quadrifolia is correct, as you can see from my comments. It's called Paris quadrifolia because it has four leaves and everyone in the Middle Ages drew it with four leaves. The VMS plant has 10 leaves. No one accidentally adds 6 leaves, so either it's a different plant or the illustrator was trying to express something different about plants (or about something else).
If it's not a correct ID, then whether there is credit or not will eventually become a moot point. It might be Paris (or Trientalis, or a number of other plants)... but it is not drawn like P. quadrifolia and it is most certainly not Aconitum.
01-05-2020, 06:32 PM
Your statement of only four sheets to Paris is incorrect. There are also 5, 6 sheets of Peris. See my examples.
It's the same with clover, normal is 3 leaves, there are also 4, 5, 6 leaves. Those with 4 are said to bring good luck.
Maybe a multileaf Paris is also said to bring more magic.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It's the same with clover, normal is 3 leaves, there are also 4, 5, 6 leaves. Those with 4 are said to bring good luck.
Maybe a multileaf Paris is also said to bring more magic.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
01-05-2020, 09:13 PM
Aga, I was very careful to say Paris quadrifolia when I was talking about the one with four leaves.
Paris can have many leaves, but only the Asian and far-east Asian varieties. The ones with many leaves do not grow in Europe. They do not grow very well in west Asia either.
Every once in a rare while you will see Paris quadrifolia with five leaves, but it is like finding a four-leaf clover, it is rare, 6 leaves is very rare. You will not find a 10-leaf Paris in the west in the Middle Ages. Even 8 would be very very unusual (almost impossible).
In east Asia, most of them were 6 or 8 leaves, sometimes 10, but the ones with 10 leaves are not common. It's not the kind of plant that was heavily traded between east and west. And it's not the kind of plant that can be easily harvested, dried and shipped like cloves or cinnamon (it is not easily cultivated outside of its preferred habitat).
There are no drawings of Paris quadrifolia with more than four leaves in any of the western medieval herbals. I have not seen more than four leaves in any Greek or Arabic herbal, either—always four leaves. The 14th- and 15th-century illustrators and writers were not familiar with species other than Paris quadrifolia.
---------
I do agree with you that a Paris quadrifolia with more than 4 leaves might be seen as magical. They did think that way in the Middle Ages (some people still do). But why 10 leaves? Would it be to exaggerate it to make a point? Or to hide it to confuse the viewer? There are other plants with more leaves and with berries or round seed husks (although the "berry" does look like a Paris seedhead). Why are those never considered as a possible IDs?
If a plant does not look like the drawing (the VMS drawing does not look like Paris quadrifolia), then the person identifying it should give reasons for why the ID is different from the plant. Cheshire didn't do this. He didn't even use correct pictures. Some of them are pictures of Aconitum (which does not look like Paris).
Paris can have many leaves, but only the Asian and far-east Asian varieties. The ones with many leaves do not grow in Europe. They do not grow very well in west Asia either.
Every once in a rare while you will see Paris quadrifolia with five leaves, but it is like finding a four-leaf clover, it is rare, 6 leaves is very rare. You will not find a 10-leaf Paris in the west in the Middle Ages. Even 8 would be very very unusual (almost impossible).
In east Asia, most of them were 6 or 8 leaves, sometimes 10, but the ones with 10 leaves are not common. It's not the kind of plant that was heavily traded between east and west. And it's not the kind of plant that can be easily harvested, dried and shipped like cloves or cinnamon (it is not easily cultivated outside of its preferred habitat).
There are no drawings of Paris quadrifolia with more than four leaves in any of the western medieval herbals. I have not seen more than four leaves in any Greek or Arabic herbal, either—always four leaves. The 14th- and 15th-century illustrators and writers were not familiar with species other than Paris quadrifolia.
---------
I do agree with you that a Paris quadrifolia with more than 4 leaves might be seen as magical. They did think that way in the Middle Ages (some people still do). But why 10 leaves? Would it be to exaggerate it to make a point? Or to hide it to confuse the viewer? There are other plants with more leaves and with berries or round seed husks (although the "berry" does look like a Paris seedhead). Why are those never considered as a possible IDs?
If a plant does not look like the drawing (the VMS drawing does not look like Paris quadrifolia), then the person identifying it should give reasons for why the ID is different from the plant. Cheshire didn't do this. He didn't even use correct pictures. Some of them are pictures of Aconitum (which does not look like Paris).
01-05-2020, 10:23 PM