06-09-2025, 04:22 PM
06-09-2025, 04:22 PM
06-09-2025, 04:39 PM
Quote:Please correct me if I'm wrong: I don't think anyone has yet transliterated and translated more than a few scattered words and perhaps a few sentences that don't actually make sense
Hello Eleonora,
I will address just this part for now.
Actually many people "translated" more than a few sentences but none of these solutions were universally accepted.
Just a few:
John Stojko: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Leo Levitov: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Gerard Cheshire: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Farmer John: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Ahmet Ardic: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Pardis Motiee: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
People here know these solutions and will be comparing your results to them. You need to be better than them.
06-09-2025, 04:45 PM
I agree. You forgot Child, who was the only one to come closer (at least he was right with the conjunction "and", i.e. ox). I've studied them all, and also compared different solutions throughout the centuries.
Thanks for the links list, it might be useful.
What I mean is that I translated ALL the codex, and alphabet and meaning is consistent. I'm perfectly aware that my results are to be analysed and studied, and I wish to meet some scholars who can help with astronomy, early Germanic syntax, and other fields in which I've always been interested but unfortunately didn't study. As well as I'm perfectly aware that my analysis needs refinement. It is just a starting point, and hopefully other scholars will go deep in their field of expertise.
Thanks for the links list, it might be useful.
What I mean is that I translated ALL the codex, and alphabet and meaning is consistent. I'm perfectly aware that my results are to be analysed and studied, and I wish to meet some scholars who can help with astronomy, early Germanic syntax, and other fields in which I've always been interested but unfortunately didn't study. As well as I'm perfectly aware that my analysis needs refinement. It is just a starting point, and hopefully other scholars will go deep in their field of expertise.
(06-09-2025, 04:39 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Please correct me if I'm wrong: I don't think anyone has yet transliterated and translated more than a few scattered words and perhaps a few sentences that don't actually make sense
Hello Eleonora,
I will address just this part for now.
Actually many people "translated" more than a few sentences but none of these solutions were universally accepted.
Just a few:
John Stojko: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Leo Levitov: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Gerard Cheshire: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Farmer John: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Ahmet Ardic: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Pardis Motiee: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
People here know these solutions and will be comparing your results to them. You need to be better than them.
06-09-2025, 05:11 PM
The codex, as you already and surely know, cannot be analysed only through its main script. There are so many levels and I’d have liked to write *everything* but I chose to write only about something I’m sure about. Besides, there are so many photos and extracts from other books and codices I didn’t publish because I couldn’t pay the photo rights to the museum or library. There are some pictures of churches with the same moons and stars, that I’ll be publishing in a next book, in order to explain why and where they are.
My next work will be about botany, which is my main field of expertise (botanic iconography in manuscripts prior to the print) and the job to do is huge, since plants in the VM are easily identifiable to me (except 2 or 3 for which I will provide the family and the genre but not the species, which would be identifiable correctly in real life only) but linguistically, their names in the codex are a philological study on their own.
My next work will be about botany, which is my main field of expertise (botanic iconography in manuscripts prior to the print) and the job to do is huge, since plants in the VM are easily identifiable to me (except 2 or 3 for which I will provide the family and the genre but not the species, which would be identifiable correctly in real life only) but linguistically, their names in the codex are a philological study on their own.
06-09-2025, 10:28 PM
(06-09-2025, 05:11 PM)eleonoramatarrese Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My next work will be about botany, which is my main field of expertise (botanic iconography in manuscripts prior to the print) and the job to do is huge, since plants in the VM are easily identifiable to me (except 2 or 3 for which I will provide the family and the genre but not the species, which would be identifiable correctly in real life only)
This is a huge claim Professor. We have only 14-15 almost certain identifications for the 126 plants that are depicted in the manuscript. You are claiming that you can easily identify except for 2 to 3 plants is actually great news for the community.
Would you be open to giving at least few examples professor? I am very excited and your opinion on this matter will be greatly appreciated not only by me I am sure this will make many people excited.
07-09-2025, 12:43 AM
What is your interpretation of f46v?
07-09-2025, 06:23 AM
07-09-2025, 07:53 AM
(07-09-2025, 06:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-09-2025, 03:21 PM)Kendiyas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Professor, this forum is as serious and scientific as it gets for the voynich manuscript discussions.
Only if one ignores at least half the content, which is not easy.
The problem with the VMS is that 'serious' academics publish attempts to decipher the manuscript which are complete nonsense, nevertheless getting recognised by their institutions and by peer review journals. The way in which Gerard C's results were circulated without any critical assessment was one of the most embarrassing failures of academic standards that I know of. Of course, the media who picked up on the topic did nothing to remedy the issue, but their reliance on inner-academic checks is at least somewhat understandable.
In other words, when this is the state of academic publishing on the matter, it is hard to blame a forum where everyone can just create an account and start contributing for the highly varying quality of posts. I would rather compare it to the coffee table talk at an academic conference, where half-baked ideas are regularly presented with too much confidence as well, and absent third parties are often criticised harshly. While this behaviour can push people with interesting heterodox ideas out of the academic mainstream, it also serves as an important assessment of the validity of new ideas that even peer review often cannot offer. Some kind of informal exchange of scepticism is valuable on its own.
For that reason, i heavily disagree with Prof. E. Matarrese's complaint that this forum lacks civility compared to academic discourse (or, apparently, to my surprise, Facebook?). On the contrary, research on the VMS really needs all the nonsense publications to get called out for what they are. Just to avoid misunderstandings, let me emphasise that I do not claim Matarrese's works are nonsense, I have not reviewed them. I would just reiterate that, no matter what the academic standing of the author, every claim of decipherment should be assessed with the highest degree of scrutiny.
07-09-2025, 08:28 AM
Phrases like "plants in the VM are easily identifiable to me" and "I translated ALL the codex" are the language of misguided Voynich solvers, not professors. Claims like these will keep drawing antipathy because they sound all too familiar.
07-09-2025, 09:49 AM
For me, the level at which this forum is "serious and scientific", and the level at which it is "civil", are two separate questions, which are not necessarily related.
In fact, for me, the level of civility here is as good as it gets. Way better than the few other fora I have been in. The moderation may take that as a compliment.
When it comes to "serious and scientific", my "at least half" enters the picture.
Even that is not a major issue as this is a chat forum, not a scientific journal.
I can see why this forum may well be unattractive for scholars in relevant fields, due to the omnipresence of Dunning-Kruger effects.
And to come back to the first statement above, scientific discussions are not always civil.
In fact, for me, the level of civility here is as good as it gets. Way better than the few other fora I have been in. The moderation may take that as a compliment.
When it comes to "serious and scientific", my "at least half" enters the picture.
Even that is not a major issue as this is a chat forum, not a scientific journal.
I can see why this forum may well be unattractive for scholars in relevant fields, due to the omnipresence of Dunning-Kruger effects.
And to come back to the first statement above, scientific discussions are not always civil.