The Voynich Ninja

(01-09-2023, 06:38 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For more details see also You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Jan. B. Hurych (2007)

This is the second time that you bring that up.
Are you saying that this set of arguments is to be taken as seriously as the work of a trained palaeographer?
Did you look at it equally critically ???
(Which pages did Jan Hurych use??)

The differences between hands 1 and 2 in terms of size, spacing and slant angle are striking.
The conclusions drawn by the author are no more than hand-waving.


I am not saying that they are wrong since I am also not a paleaographer.
Just that they are extremely weak.

(01-09-2023, 09:31 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are you saying that this set of arguments is to be taken as seriously as the work of a trained palaeographer?

For the sake of the argument lets assume a trained linguist famous for speaking numerous exotic languages would claim that he was able to identify five different languages within the Voynich text.

His very first argument is that it is possible to distinguish between four variants for EVA-o behind EVA-q. He states that it is possible to distinguish between two main variants for EVA-o written with one stroke (which he reads as 'o' or 'u') and with two strokes (which he reads as 'a' or 'e'). The linguist explains that he has uploaded the Voynich text into the WinWord program to check the text in detail. As evidence he points to a screenshot of the program as well as to a few images of EVA-o written with one and two strokes.

The screenshot of WinWord shows that only a small subset of 44 Voynich manuscript pages were used as input for the analysis. The trained linguist explains this by saying "Because the languages on most of the first fifty-six leaves can be clearly identified as either language 1 or language 2, it was not necessary to upload all of those pages for analysis. A representative sample of leaves written in language 1 and 2 in the herbal section were uploaded, along with leaves from all of the other sections of the manuscript."

Then someone points out that on nearly every page some instances of EVA-o are written in one stroke, suggesting that the entire text probably uses only one language. Therefore, he asks the trained linguist to publish the details of his research.

The linguist responds by arguing "In fact, that piece of information (which I can't access anymore anyway) is irrelevant and shows that he has fundamentally misunderstood the point of the WinWord program. WinWord is NOT an automated tool for analyzing texts. It is a visual tool designed to help humans to read and write texts. It does not matter which pages I started with – the choice was fairly random and was just a way to help me get started. Eventually, once I knew which letterforms were going to be diagnostic for identifying languages in the manuscript, I examined every page manually before assigning languages to each."

Would you still argue that since he is a trained linguist and he knows a lot about languages we have to believe him? If not, why exactly it becomes a different story to you if you replace "trained linguist" with "trained palaeographer", "WinWord" with "Archetype", "language" with "scribe", and EVA-o with EVA-k?

Anyway, I think I have mad my point clear. Everyone interested in Lisa Fagin Davis work can decide for himself if the scribes 1, 3, and 5 write EVA-k in one stroke as Lisa claims or in two strokes. Just look into the Voynich manuscript itself. For instance by using the following link You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Having read the thread, I'm at a loss about what's the point of dispute here regarding section 3.2 of the subject article.

See, Timm & Schinner start (that section 3.2) with the Davis' conclusion of five scribal hands present in the VMS, which conclusion they do not support, so the remainder of the section is dedicated to substantiation of this disagreement. Basicaly two arguments are provided: the first one is that some other people, e.g. Carter, did not support the viewpoint of several scribes, the second one is that Timm & Schinner's own observations do not lead to the conclusion of several scribes.

Since both Timm and Davis agree that palaeography is not "exact science" and implies a degree of subjectivity, I can't see how this dispute can lead to any productive outcome. Two palaeographers may quite likely disagree in their conclusions. So if one looks for a solid practical basement of palaeographic conclusions, which to use as input for further codicological or statistical discussions, then averaging opinions of several professional palaeographers would, I think, be the best way for constructing that kind of palaeographic foundation. And, in this light, every input from a professional palaeographer is most valuable and welcome. Since a palaeographic conclusion, especially in this case when the VMS is a unique specimen of the script, is not something objectively verifyable, then the only way is some kind of consensus at large, is it not?

Regarding the point that only a subset of the folios was analyzed: that would be important if the conclusion put forward by Davis were that there was only a single scribe. But since she suggests that there were several scribes, then folios omitted in the analysis would not diminish the number of discerned scribes, they could only add even more scribes.

Anton, 'just' the disagreement is not the problem.

I started to type a more detailed response but decided it was better for me to leave the handwriting topic here. Indeed it brings nothing.

The textual statistics analysis remains a topic worth discussing for me.

(01-09-2023, 09:31 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are you saying that this set of arguments is to be taken as seriously as the work of a trained palaeographer?

I agree with Rene here.  In general, I would say that the work of a trained palaeographer carries much more weight for me than the analysis of , sorry, laymans in this field. For me, a "critique at eye level" would only be that of another expert, unless one argues with the necessary caution and with reservations.

edit: Just because palaeography is not an exact science does not mean that education and years of training do not generate a significant knowledge advantage. I therefore find it understandable that Lisa no longer participates in a discussion in this form.

(06-08-2023, 04:34 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am certain that he will continue to refute me in print and on this site, but I do not plan to rebut his arguments further.

[attachment=7568]

By clicking back and forth through the pages, I noticed details that I wouldn't see if I looked closely.
This means that it may be easier to see differences when you run through the pages quickly than when you look closely.
For example, on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. it seems to me that there are two writers at work here. (Separation red line).
It is also possible that it is just a supplement by the same person, simply me in a different frame of mind.
The opinion of a specialist would certainly be important here.
Example: