(12-09-2024, 07:01 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These particular lines, by the way, we cannot read with certainty in any of the three cases.
It those lines are indeed Latin, I'd expect that Kircher, Marci and/or Baresch wouldn't have had many difficulties to read them, at the time, if they were already there.
If they did, they did not leave any note about it, I believe. So potentially they are not at least Latin, nor other languages they knew.
They are Latin
script, but not necessarily Latin language.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. has:
oror sheey p/val?en p/vbren so nim gasmich
-> "so nim gasmich" is 100% certainly German, and the "so nim" part is very common. The two words before that are also most likely German-ish, but trickier.
f66r: in my opinion, the most likely readings are German.
f17r: you will see people reading this as German with the same certainty that others read it as Latin. I haven't quite made up my mind about this one. I was initially leaning Latin, but since the two similar annotations are German, maybe German is the safer assumption.
(12-09-2024, 12:49 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But when I look at the structure of the "plaintext" portions of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in particular, I find myself nudged in the exact opposite direction: what looks like "plaintext" seems to behave more like Voynichese written with Latin characters. Without quibbling over specifics, six + marix + morix + vix + ahia + ma+ria resembles the structure of Voynichese rather closely, even unto its rigid glyph order and repetitive quality. If vords aren't words, then perhaps six, marix, morix, etc. aren't words either, in spite of appearances. We might be seeing Latin characters integrated into a Voynichese structure rather than the other way around.
This is a good observation by itself - that part of the marginalia act kind of Voynichese-like. However, is this also true for the parts most closely mixed with Voynichese? E.g. on f116v, the problematic part you point out is a separate section: a prayer or charm or spell or whatever, with crosses on each end and between the words. Latin language plus "spell language". But then on the next line is Voynichese with German language from recipe books ("in that case, take goat's milk").
However, if we look at the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. marginalia from the perspective of "variability", there may actually be something going on. Three words start with ?-a-double_ascender. Three end in -er. It might be a coincidence, but it's still remarkable, there is a certain resonance going on.
[
attachment=9187][
attachment=9188][
attachment=9189]
Well, it will never be goat's milk for me. But I think I've said that often enough. That's why I'm not going to start a discussion (not again).
For me it's quite clear.
‘so nim' tz as mich o’
Which means ‘so it takes me too’ in the sense of contagious. If you have a cold, it will get me too.
Not a ‘g’ for me, but a ‘tz / cz’.
F66 is very clear. "und den muss des" ‘and it has to be’.
Not ‘del’, it's clearly an ‘s’. It is also called the Rhaetian, short ‘s’, as opposed to the long Romansh ‘s’
It's more common than you might think. And the Rhaetian takes me back to northern Italy.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
[
attachment=9190]
Perhaps another hint from the dictionary.
As this is a regional spelling variant, it can also be localised.
For me, it's almost the same as Schwalbenschwanzzinnen.
(12-09-2024, 12:49 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
But when I look at the structure of the "plaintext" portions of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in particular, I find myself nudged in the exact opposite direction: what looks like "plaintext" seems to behave more like Voynichese written with Latin characters. Without quibbling over specifics, six + marix + morix + vix + ahia + ma+ria resembles the structure of Voynichese rather closely, even unto its rigid glyph order and repetitive quality. If vords aren't words, then perhaps six, marix, morix, etc. aren't words either, in spite of appearances. We might be seeing Latin characters integrated into a Voynichese structure rather than the other way around.
Wow, this is an exciting comment! So, an idea might be that the manuscript is encoded as follows:
1) plaintext (in Latin or German or ...) converted by some unknown process to repetitive-looking plaintext-like words
2) those words converted to Voynichese by some simple substitution cipher
Julian
Even with all the recent exciting MSI developments I think we must not lose ourselves in overly quick conclusions.
Fact is that we do not know what purpose, if any, the marginalia were supposed to serve, with or without Voynichese.
But I find it curious that all of the marginalia appear to be highly ambiguous gibberish. Also they mirror both text and imagery in being cobbled together from a toolkit of relatively common elements, yet overall they don't make any sense. All elements of the VM look and feel familiar, yet are profoundly odd in a bigger context. Is that a mere coincidence?
That said, I'm also skeptical about the "in that case, take goat's milk" translation - or any other for that matter. It may look like it at first glance, but not quite without significant mental gymnastics. Like most VM "theories". I'm afraid it's not that easy. And again - if it was a single ambiguous line of text, fine. But all marginalia are like this. What are the odds that this is just our inability to read an ordinary sentence correctly?
(12-09-2024, 09:21 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even with all the recent exciting MSI developments I think we must not lose ourselves in overly quick conclusions.
Fact is that we do not know what purpose, if any, the marginalia were supposed to serve, with or without Voynichese.
But I find it curious that all of the marginalia appear to be highly ambiguous gibberish. Also they mirror both text and imagery in being cobbled together from a toolkit of relatively common elements, yet overall they don't make any sense. All elements of the VM look and feel familiar, yet are profoundly odd in a bigger context. Is that a mere coincidence?
That said, I'm also skeptical about the "in that case, take goat's milk" translation - or any other for that matter. It may look like it at first glance, but not quite without significant mental gymnastics. Like most VM "theories". I'm afraid it's not that easy. And again - if it was a single ambiguous line of text, fine. But all marginalia are like this. What are the odds that this is just our inability to read an ordinary sentence correctly?
Has anyone thought of the possibility that the plaintext of the voynich MS is like the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. just written in an invented alphabet? Since we can't even make sense of this plain latin text it wouldn't be surprising we can't make sense of the encoded text either. Maybe it's just nonsense, maybe it's a mix of different languages only the author understands, maybe it is magical spells or charms in an invented language.
(12-09-2024, 02:35 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a good observation by itself - that part of the marginalia act kind of Voynichese-like. However, is this also true for the parts most closely mixed with Voynichese? E.g. on f116v, the problematic part you point out is a separate section: a prayer or charm or spell or whatever, with crosses on each end and between the words. Latin language plus "spell language". But then on the next line is Voynichese with German language from recipe books ("in that case, take goat's milk").
I'll admit that the "charm" segment looks more obviously patterned than other passages do. But there could be a few vaguely Voynichese-like patterns that apply throughout -- at least, as much as it's possible to tell from such a small sample of text overall, and with such uncertainty about so many of the individual letters.
- The glyph that looks like [8] or EVA [d] is always word-final (including what could be [mu8] on f66r) except for [pal8cn] (or whatever).
- The glyph that looks like a Latin [x] is always word-final and preceded by [i], except for [poxlcbor] (or whatever).
- The two exceptions [pal8cn] and [poxlcbor] both involve words that otherwise begin [pal] or [pol], so they too follow a pattern of sorts.
- The glyph that looks like something like [u] is always either word-initial (e.g. ubren) or the second letter of a word (e.g. lucz) -- never later.
- The glyph that looks like [c] often has a horizontal line extending forward from it to form ligature-like structures a bit like we see in Voynichese.
The possibility of a self-developed language is not so far-fetched. It is called ‘Rotwelsch’.
It is the language of the wanderers. Bathers, travelling surgeons, small traders, scissor grinders, etc.
By travelling through different areas, they developed their own language.
But I think it is less likely. Someone at that time, with that kind of education (university or similar) would certainly not be a migrant labourer. Apart from that, there are several scribes.
We recently saw a documentary about it on television, hence the idea.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
[
attachment=9192]
Ending ‘s’ (red) occurs quite frequently. Looks similar to the ‘d’ (blue).
Interesting is the ‘cl’ (green), which also occurs in VM.
I think im made a mistake or ran out of ideas for combinations.