Scribes of the Voynich Manuscript
Interview with Dr. Lisa Fagin Davis
There is a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and also a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Abstract:
Quote:Our conversation focuses on the Voynich Manuscript, or Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book
and Manuscript Library, MS 408. This famously arcane manuscript remains undeciphered, or
what Dr. Davis calls an "irresistible mystery." But with the help of the DigiPal resource, Dr. Davis
has been able to draw conclusions about the scribes involved, without needing to read the text.
We also discuss the future of medieval studies in the digital age, including the most exciting
tools available for scholarship and public engagement.
I liked what Lisa says neat the end, about trying to find out how many glyphs there are from a paleographical perspective.
(06-02-2021, 02:14 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I liked what Lisa says neat the end, about trying to find out how many glyphs there are from a paleographical perspective.
I would love to be involved in that work. I think that (and I'm sure you agree) single glyph sequences have a huge potential to inform this work. But other statistics and patterns should also be brought into play.
I disagree, for example, that [qo] should be considered a single glyph. A word such as [qokeedy] seems to be more strongly related to [okeedy] than to [keedy], suggesting that [q] and [o] are dependent, but not a single glyph. But such arguments would need to be considered carefully and with other evidence.
Sadly I don't know enough about palaeography but I would like to understand how each glyph was written (stroke order and direction). I believe that some rare glyphs could be writing mistakes, where the scribe starting writing one glyph but had meant to write another. This might provide some insights into the links between glyphs.
I still can't make up my mind about q. I used to lean slightly towards "qo" being a single glyph, but after my last blog post, I must shift towards "q" as a separate glyph.
What I wonder, regarding Lisa's work, is how one can differentiate between ligation and "glyphs that visually contain other glyphs". Is q always in ligature with o, or does the single glyph we write as "qo" just contain something that happens to look like o?
About minim clusters, I would also add that they are flanked on both sides by a minim with an extra stroke, not just on the right.
I've gone back and forth about [qo], but from a paleographical perspective, they are clearly connected, and always so. [q] doesn't ligate with anything else, and is so rarely found alone that it seems an aberration when it occurs without [o]. And so in the article on the glyphset that I've got coming out at some point, I've considered [qo] as a single glyph, which means that the [o] in [qo] should not be "counted" as an [o]. That changes the glyph frequency fairly dramatically. The frequencey of [qo], however, is nearly the same as [q], which makes sense. What all of that might mean linguistically, if anything, is for others to determine!
Like many of you, I've also spent alot of time thinking about bridge-gallows and what they might signify...ligatures of multiple gallows seems plausible, although the fact that they almost always occur at the top of a page (or paragraph midpage on occasion) suggests that they are purely graphic entities with no semantic difference from the gallows that they connect. I'm really fascinated by those characters. They're really lovely from a graphic standpoint.
FYI, counting in the v101 transcription:
EVA [o] (including the [o]s in [qo]) = around 15%
EVA [q] = around 3%
EVA [qo] = around 2.5%
EVA [o] (NOT including the [o]s in [qo]) = around 10.5%
I think the other way round.
If "o" were really bound to "q", "qc" would not be possible.
"qo" is 3 letters in the Alemannic spelling.
Example in German:
gnau = genau =exact
gnueg = genug = enough
grad = gerade = straight
The "e" is bound in the "g" but is not written or spoken, but is there in German.
But what if the rules can change?
I always found it puzzling that "qo" is rarely used in Currier A, but far more frequently in Currier B. Maybe such observations indicate that local rule changes are in place. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss "qe" as aberration just because it rarely occurs.
(07-02-2021, 01:29 PM)lurker Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But what if the rules can change?
I always found it puzzling that "qo" is rarely used in Currier A, but far more frequently in Currier B. Maybe such observations indicate that local rule changes are in place. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss "qe" as aberration just because it rarely occurs.
While words beginning [qo] are less common in Currier A than Currier B, they are overall still common. Some pages do, however, seem devoid of [qo] words, and others have distinct patterning. Maybe broken down by scribe [qo] usage would be revealing.
(07-02-2021, 01:58 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (07-02-2021, 01:29 PM)lurker Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But what if the rules can change?
I always found it puzzling that "qo" is rarely used in Currier A, but far more frequently in Currier B. Maybe such observations indicate that local rule changes are in place. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss "qe" as aberration just because it rarely occurs.
While words beginning [qo] are less common in Currier A than Currier B, they are overall still common. Some pages do, however, seem devoid of [qo] words, and others have distinct patterning. Maybe broken down by scribe [qo] usage would be revealing.
I didn't break down it by scribe, but I did discuss the varying amounts of [qo] in this post in order to challenge the assertion that it stands for any particular letter (or two letter combination) consistently (in this particular string it was English [th]).
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Obviously, not earth-shattering, and it can be reproduced easily, and I concluded with the non-useful statement that no conclusion could be made, but here's the link.