I'm sure somewhere in the forum and blogs, someone has probably provided their observations on the last word token in folio 24v, line 6.
It appears to be a 'correction' in that the scribe has added in a (missed) letter glyph.
Has anyone had or seen any thoughts about this particular anomaly in the Voynichese text?
Wladimir has collected quite a number of various artifacts, posted elsewhere in the forum.
This one, IMO, looks like a correction indeed. Like sar was the intended vord.
The initial glyph of the preceding vord is also curious - halved bench gallows, and not reaching the baseline.
(22-12-2023, 10:06 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sure somewhere in the forum and blogs, someone has probably provided their observations on the last word token in folio 24v, line 6.
It appears to be a 'correction' in that the scribe has added in a (missed) letter glyph.
Has anyone had or seen any thoughts about this particular anomaly in the Voynichese text?
It is hard to construe it as a correction. What needs correcting? Adding the extra letter to the vord wouldn't improve it and in fact would deform it. Unless the scribe was unhappy with a glyph and wanted to clarify it - but the vord is as as well written as any other on the page. Arguably, the initial letter is a malformed [cfh] but in that case how does the correction correct it?
(22-12-2023, 11:28 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (22-12-2023, 10:06 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sure somewhere in the forum and blogs, someone has probably provided their observations on the last word token in folio 24v, line 6.
It appears to be a 'correction' in that the scribe has added in a (missed) letter glyph.
Has anyone had or seen any thoughts about this particular anomaly in the Voynichese text?
It is hard to construe it as a correction. What needs correcting? Adding the extra letter to the vord wouldn't improve it and in fact would deform it. Unless the scribe was unhappy with a glyph and wanted to clarify it - but the vord is as as well written as any other on the page. Arguably, the initial letter is a malformed [cfh] but in that case how does the correction correct it?
I would hazard that they might both be original very rare glyphs, and not corrections,.the like of which can be found elsewhere.
(22-12-2023, 11:28 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (22-12-2023, 10:06 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sure somewhere in the forum and blogs, someone has probably provided their observations on the last word token in folio 24v, line 6.
It appears to be a 'correction' in that the scribe has added in a (missed) letter glyph.
Has anyone had or seen any thoughts about this particular anomaly in the Voynichese text?
It is hard to construe it as a correction. What needs correcting? Adding the extra letter to the vord wouldn't improve it and in fact would deform it. Unless the scribe was unhappy with a glyph and wanted to clarify it - but the vord is as as well written as any other on the page. Arguably, the initial letter is a malformed [cfh] but in that case how does the correction correct it?
I used the term "correction" for lack of a better description. It might be "well written", but it is clearly not like elsewhere. One letter is written above the rest and it's probable reason to believe that it was added in after the fact (i.e to correct what was otherwise present in its absence).
What is also curious is that I cannot find any combination of these letter-glyphs (i.e candidate options for what the "word" is) occurring as a word-token anywhere else in the manuscript. This particular word ("{cf}arsa,r" in ZL transliteration) is then both unusual in how it has been altered and in that it is unique (i.e is a "hapax legomenon").
Here are some other threads about corrections.
No Corrections
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT. ( Weirdly page_1 of this thread in inaccessible )
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
ff20v - Did the scribe make a mistake?
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(22-12-2023, 11:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.his one, IMO, looks like a correction indeed. Like sar was the intended vord.
The initial glyph of the preceding vord is also curious - halved bench gallows, and not reaching the baseline.
I read the preceding word as OSVAR - OSVAR SAR translates in old Slovenian GIVE WARNING TO THE EMPEROR. The root SVAR (2. pers. singular, imperative mood of the verb SVARITI) occurs two times in Cosmology - once as a label next to the picture of the lighthouse, and another time next to the picture of the observation tower. The word SAR stands for TSAR which in Contemporary Slovenian became CESAR.
[
attachment=8035][
attachment=8036]
Corrections occur from time to time.
The glyph is already correct. It occurs in different ways. It is certainly a combination.
If you look at the whole picture, uncertainties are recognisable. Characters do not have the same height in the words. Individual words do not maintain the same height either. Some words are written narrow, and sometimes wide. Uncertainties in the spacing.
You have to think several times. If he thinks in German, he has to translate it into the dialect of the others and then into the coding.
The picture radiates uncertainty.
Why should someone have to think so much if he only has to write nonsense anyway.
You can read a lot out of it, but how should I interpret it?
(23-12-2023, 01:32 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT. ( Weirdly page_1 of this thread in inaccessible )
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Exactly the thread I meant above. Indeed there's something wrong with the thread view, thanks for pointing that out. Looks like a DB problem.