22-05-2024, 09:26 PM
Lol, Ruby Novacna why didnt you post that earlier !
I spent about an hour working that out
I spent about an hour working that out
23-05-2024, 10:56 AM
[quote="Koen G" pid='59690' dateline='1716404398']
Das Wort „Maria“ im Zusammenhang mit den Kreuzen ist hier die einzig mögliche Lesart. Dies ist eines der wenigen Dinge in diesem Manuskript, die nicht allzu schwierig sind. Ähnliche Kreuzungen finden sich in ähnlichen Kontexten: Zaubersprüche, Zaubersprüche, Gebete... (Und die Grenze zwischen diesen „Genres“ ist sehr dünn).
[/Zitat]
I disagree! The authors r and the v are often mixed up! The v is open on top, the r is closed and looks like an umbrella. Compare this with the letters in the words poxleber and rc (ricinus).
ma via = ma(nare) vi(tr)a a typical expression in pharmaceutical recipes meaning "fill into glasses".
The crosses mean nothing else than plus-signs indicating what has to be added and the sequence of the
ingredients.
Das Wort „Maria“ im Zusammenhang mit den Kreuzen ist hier die einzig mögliche Lesart. Dies ist eines der wenigen Dinge in diesem Manuskript, die nicht allzu schwierig sind. Ähnliche Kreuzungen finden sich in ähnlichen Kontexten: Zaubersprüche, Zaubersprüche, Gebete... (Und die Grenze zwischen diesen „Genres“ ist sehr dünn).
[/Zitat]
I disagree! The authors r and the v are often mixed up! The v is open on top, the r is closed and looks like an umbrella. Compare this with the letters in the words poxleber and rc (ricinus).
ma via = ma(nare) vi(tr)a a typical expression in pharmaceutical recipes meaning "fill into glasses".
The crosses mean nothing else than plus-signs indicating what has to be added and the sequence of the
ingredients.
23-05-2024, 11:19 AM
It is called ‘ma + ria’
and ‘te’ = lat. (you) and not ‘rc’ (Ricinus)
also ‘lab’ and not ‘leb’
The letters are already spelt correctly. There is no interpretation.
and ‘te’ = lat. (you) and not ‘rc’ (Ricinus)
also ‘lab’ and not ‘leb’
The letters are already spelt correctly. There is no interpretation.
23-05-2024, 12:00 PM
I think it is good that @BessAgritianin's reading is out in the open, and that there can be no doubt that this is her original work.
Now in my opinion, nobody knows the right answer, i.e. what the original author of this line intended to say.
This leads to the usual problem in the discussion of this proposed reading, namely that this is opinion vs. opinion, and there is no effective way to judge how much weight should be given to each individual opinion.
The first time I was ever impressed by any interpretation of the text on this page was the reading by Johannes Albus (pseudonym) that he presented at Villa Mondragone in 2012. This is because he clarified the reading "poxleber", incorporated the reading by Richard Salomon of "so nim Geiss Milch", and pointed out that the animal in the margin was a goat, linking it to either or both of poxleber and Geissmilch, and showing it was drawn similar to the animals in the Aries zodiac emblems.
So, I was impressed. No earlier reading ever put so many things together. But I don't know how much of his reading of the text is correct. I have no expertise in the matter, and I will also refrain from trying to judge this new interpretation, for the same reason. I know that some people who seem to know what they are talking about had some objections to Johannes Albus' reading, but again, I cannot judge that, and I wonder who, in this forum, can.
But I also don't know the answer to that.
Now in my opinion, nobody knows the right answer, i.e. what the original author of this line intended to say.
This leads to the usual problem in the discussion of this proposed reading, namely that this is opinion vs. opinion, and there is no effective way to judge how much weight should be given to each individual opinion.
The first time I was ever impressed by any interpretation of the text on this page was the reading by Johannes Albus (pseudonym) that he presented at Villa Mondragone in 2012. This is because he clarified the reading "poxleber", incorporated the reading by Richard Salomon of "so nim Geiss Milch", and pointed out that the animal in the margin was a goat, linking it to either or both of poxleber and Geissmilch, and showing it was drawn similar to the animals in the Aries zodiac emblems.
So, I was impressed. No earlier reading ever put so many things together. But I don't know how much of his reading of the text is correct. I have no expertise in the matter, and I will also refrain from trying to judge this new interpretation, for the same reason. I know that some people who seem to know what they are talking about had some objections to Johannes Albus' reading, but again, I cannot judge that, and I wonder who, in this forum, can.
But I also don't know the answer to that.
23-05-2024, 12:54 PM
Unfortunately you did not read the gothic cursiv script (Bastarda) correctly. Sorry, but most of it is wrong.
For example "abra" in fact has to be read "atzia". Many researchers got it wrong.
The second glyph represents the phonem "tz".
"Atzia" is written in dialect and means here "let rest" (in modern german anziehen, dialect azia) and indicates that the ointment has to rest for some time before it is filled into glasses. It is a typical expression of cooking recipes or when producing an ointment.
The label "lab"definitely is the German word for "rennet" which is produced out of the stomach of goats, sheep, calves.
Thats why a goat and a stomach is drawn. It shows a animal stomach with its typical chambers. Nothing else!
It might also refer to the last word "gasmich" which is a dialect word and means "goatsmilk". Your transcription "yasmine" is wrong. The first letter is g not y.
There was a phonem shift and the middlehighgerman diphtong ei > a.
Geiss > Gas (Goat). This phonem shift happend already very early on.
To my mind the dialectal language of f116v belongs to the eastern bavarian-austrian group. There are also latin words for pharmaceutical terms.
The recipe is simply an ointment used for joint inflamation and has nothing to do with sexual diseases.
The results of my research can soon be read in my publication.
For example "abra" in fact has to be read "atzia". Many researchers got it wrong.
The second glyph represents the phonem "tz".
"Atzia" is written in dialect and means here "let rest" (in modern german anziehen, dialect azia) and indicates that the ointment has to rest for some time before it is filled into glasses. It is a typical expression of cooking recipes or when producing an ointment.
The label "lab"definitely is the German word for "rennet" which is produced out of the stomach of goats, sheep, calves.
Thats why a goat and a stomach is drawn. It shows a animal stomach with its typical chambers. Nothing else!
It might also refer to the last word "gasmich" which is a dialect word and means "goatsmilk". Your transcription "yasmine" is wrong. The first letter is g not y.
There was a phonem shift and the middlehighgerman diphtong ei > a.
Geiss > Gas (Goat). This phonem shift happend already very early on.
To my mind the dialectal language of f116v belongs to the eastern bavarian-austrian group. There are also latin words for pharmaceutical terms.
The recipe is simply an ointment used for joint inflamation and has nothing to do with sexual diseases.
The results of my research can soon be read in my publication.
23-05-2024, 04:44 PM
One problem is that some of these shapes are just problematic. By claiming that they have to be this or that, we're making a fool of ourselves. The only correct way to approach these shapes is to describe them as they compare to common forms in medieval writing, and what the issues with them are.
My main candidate for the "problematic" status on f116v is the various 8-shapes. Anyone claiming that these can be easily read as d or s or whatever has not studied the strokes well.
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In contrast, the standard reading of "Maria" is not problematic at all. V-shaped "r" is quite common.
My main candidate for the "problematic" status on f116v is the various 8-shapes. Anyone claiming that these can be easily read as d or s or whatever has not studied the strokes well.
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:After studying how “d” and “short-s” are formed, the conclusion can only be that the VM 8-shapes are neither. If I really must choose, however, I would be inclined to read them as “d”. When I asked Lisa Fagin Davis about this, she agreed that it’s a mess and we really can’t tell. She does agree that “IF they are letters of the Roman alphabet, then I think it likely they’re [d]s, but it’s just too hard to say for sure.”
In contrast, the standard reading of "Maria" is not problematic at all. V-shaped "r" is quite common.
24-05-2024, 10:51 AM
(23-05-2024, 04:44 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One problem is that some of these shapes are just problematic. By claiming that they have to be this or that, we're making a fool of ourselves. The only correct way to approach these shapes is to describe them as they compare to common forms in medieval writing, and what the issues with them are.
My main candidate for the "problematic" status on f116v is the various 8-shapes. Anyone claiming that these can be easily read as d or s or whatever has not studied the strokes well.
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:After studying how “d” and “short-s” are formed, the conclusion can only be that the VM 8-shapes are neither. If I really must choose, however, I would be inclined to read them as “d”. When I asked Lisa Fagin Davis about this, she agreed that it’s a mess and we really can’t tell. She does agree that “IF they are letters of the Roman alphabet, then I think it likely they’re [d]s, but it’s just too hard to say for sure.”
Y
In contrast, the standard reading of "Maria" is not problematic at all. V-shaped "r" is quite common.
24-05-2024, 06:20 PM
(23-05-2024, 04:44 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One problem is that some of these shapes are just problematic. By claiming that they have to be this or that, we're making a fool of ourselves. The only correct way to approach these shapes is to describe them as they compare to common forms in medieval writing, and what the issues with them are.
My main candidate for the "problematic" status on f116v is the various 8-shapes. Anyone claiming that these can be easily read as d or s or whatever has not studied the strokes well.
See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:After studying how “d” and “short-s” are formed, the conclusion can only be that the VM 8-shapes are neither. If I really must choose, however, I would be inclined to read them as “d”. When I asked Lisa Fagin Davis about this, she agreed that it’s a mess and we really can’t tell. She does agree that “IF they are letters of the Roman alphabet, then I think it likely they’re [d]s, but it’s just too hard to say for sure.”
In contrast, the standard reading of "Maria" is not problematic at all. V-shaped "r" is quite common.
Dear Koen,
Thank you for helping me post this document!
Although it seems easy (at reading) I have spent months of research. But it is not You to whom I need to explain, since all of You have spent much time in this project.
I have some translations from the rest of the manuscript, but will not post them at all. This is like Plato's Republic book 7 with the men in cave... If you tell them something about the real world, they not believe you.
24-05-2024, 07:32 PM
(24-05-2024, 06:20 PM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is like Plato's Republic book 7 with the men in cave... If you tell them something about the real world, they not believe you.
Almost all solvers say something like this. They all provide us with isolated word translations, or sentences that don't make sense in either the target language or English, using systems that are so flexible one can and does produce anything out of them. Despite this, it's never their system that is at fault; it's often our fault for refusing to accept it.
Even though, if we did accept one of them, we would likely have no grounds for refusing to accept the others on the same basis, and there have been many, many claimed solutions, all incompatible with each other.
25-05-2024, 04:10 AM
(24-05-2024, 07:32 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-05-2024, 06:20 PM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is like Plato's Republic book 7 with the men in cave... If you tell them something about the real world, they not believe you.
Almost all solvers say something like this. They all provide us with isolated word translations, or sentences that don't make sense in either the target language or English, using systems that are so flexible one can and does produce anything out of them. Despite this, it's never their system that is at fault; it's often our fault for refusing to accept it.
My translation is full and understandable. It proves a lot of facts, if you do not sit in the cave, explained in Plato book 7.
And let me be more explicable:
1.The Manuscript is not a hoax.
2. It is a highly interesting medicinal work.
3. The user of the manuscript and the author are different persons, since the user has written a lot of explanatory notes. Here comes also the thought that the user has copied the book without understanding from the original, which we don't have.
4. The last page (f116v) is in old Moravian and German languages. Be very careful here I am speaking about the last page. The other pages may content another languages too.
5. Is the user of the Manuscript (defined by me as the one, who wrote the marginalia - all explanatory notes) Jacobus de Tepence? I think so, but the final word have handwriting comparison experts.
6. It is a recipe for facial treatment by some venereal disease.
7. The user was a highly educated physician or a healer, since his terminology is professional.
8. Some of the very important letters like "8" is not "d" like all here have accepted. This will change all of the cave statistical results. This will help maybe to translate further to some of you.
8. I have some translation from another pages too, but I am not sure if posting them here will contribute to anything, considering your thoughts above.