(Yesterday, 01:21 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 01:02 PM)Dobri Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, at least one symbol in the cipher manuscript can be identified with some certainty for the past hundred years of research.
"With some certainty" is not yet justified.
I wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ages ago. The similarity is good, and I dare say that this is objective. Still I am not sure that it is not coincidental.
There was a whole thread here (or in Stephen Bax's blog) showing that the same symbol was used as a paragraph marker in Spanish manuscripts. I would not know how to search for that but perhaps someone else remembers.
It is a part of every investigation to deal with circumstantial evidence to connect the dots.
The very first post in this thread is an example of following a lead.
(Yesterday, 01:39 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 12:43 PM)Dobri Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If it is pretty universal, please provide an example of the use of sideways (flying) letter 'm' in a non-Beneventan script.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Apparently, your examples are not concerned with
suprascript.
(Yesterday, 01:19 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are many symbols in the Voynich MS that look like something or other. I think it takes more than just visual similarity to conclusively prove that the scribe had some particular symbol in mind when writing a certain shape.
If it takes more than just visual similarity, what more does it take? The determination of 'visual similarity' - based on appearance - is somewhat subjective. In contrast, the placement of 'objects' is structural and therefore objective.
Here two of the three examples consist of a matching pair of subjective interpretations and an objective determination in a given system.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(Yesterday, 07:55 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If it takes more than just visual similarity, what more does it take?
I guess some meaningful context or a system that unites visually similar features. If a single item in the MS matches very well visually with something else, this is a good reason for investigation, but this is not a good reason to just claim that A is B, case solved.
(8 hours ago)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess some meaningful context or a system that unites visually similar features. If a single item in the MS matches very well visually with something else, this is a good reason for investigation, but this is not a good reason to just claim that A is B, case solved.
The system that unites visually similar features of not just one but several items (sideways flying 'm', 'V' and 'U', possibly 'G" and 'C', and an 'O' shaped shield) is the Beneventan script.
The most striking feature is the suprascript of said 'm' which is unique to the Beneventan script.
T
he breakthrough here is the realization that the red embellishments in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are actually readable Latin letters.
One could continue doubt it to a certain extent. However, there is now a new line of investigation that has never been considered before.
(6 hours ago)Dobri Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The system that unites visually similar features of not just one but several items (sideways flying 'm', 'V' and 'U', possibly 'G" and 'C', and an 'O' shaped shield) is the Beneventan script.
The most striking feature is the suprascript of said 'm' which is unique to the Beneventan script.
As far as I can tell, this is not 'm', this is a different shape. The examples of Beneventan 'm', those that I've seen in this thread so far, are a clear 3-like shape with two curves meeting at a point, mimicking the shape of the normal upright 'm'. In the Voynich MS this is a single wavy line, with a clear outline of two ink paths, a big and smooth one, so this is not a slip of pen.
(6 hours ago)Dobri Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The breakthrough here is the realization that the red embellishments in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are actually readable Latin letters.
One could continue doubt it to a certain extent. However, there is now a new line of investigation that has never been considered before.
Even if your interpretation (edit: of the shapes) turns out correct, I don't see how this is different from attempting to read
a as a,
o as o,
q as q, etc. There have been many attempts of interpreting various Voynichese symbols as Latin letters.
JKP's blog You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. on the big red weirdos is also relevant.
He showed how most if not all Voynichese glyphs can be found in Latin scribal abbreviations. Applying those abbreviations, however, does not result in any success anymore than reading q as q, etc, does like oshfdk says. So why would you expect the weirdos to be different?
(If you believe you have identified a language and solved the manuscript, then it goes on the Solutions list, even if you have only partially 'translated it'. That doesn't seem to be the case for this thread so far, but I agree with Koen that the approach here can be a slippery slope towards getting on the list.)
(4 hours ago)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree with Koen that the approach here can be a slippery slope towards getting on the list.
I don't think it makes sense to discourage people from trying to get on the list. Sometimes you can reach the right outcome through an initially flawed process, if you think it through and adapt. On the other hand, if people are discouraged from proposing specific solutions, a lot of paths will remain unfollowed.
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that qualifying for the list effectively means death in terms of Voynich research. Solvers fall into the big hole and they don't climb back out again. They are irrevocably wedded to their conclusions and don't change their minds, so they have closed the door to finding the actual solution (assuming one exists). It's a giant, massive trap that people should be warned about again and again.
(6 hours ago)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I can tell, this is not 'm', this is a different shape. The examples of Beneventan 'm', those that I've seen in this thread so far, are a clear 3-like shape with two curves meeting at a point, mimicking the shape of the normal upright 'm'. In the Voynich MS this is a single wavy line, with a clear outline of two ink paths, a big and smooth one, so this is not a slip of pen.
Even if your interpretation (edit: of the shapes) turns out correct, I don't see how this is different from attempting to read a as a, o as o, q as q, etc. There have been many attempts of interpreting various Voynichese symbols as Latin letters.
The suprascript letter 'm' in the cipher manuscript is written on a larger area than the regular tiny suprascript and this explain the differences.
Here the attempt is not to interpret various Voynichese symbols as Latin letters. The effort is to investigate why two paragraphs in the very first folio You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. start with Latin letters (being prefixes of the two initial vords?) and how this could help identifying some cipher symbols as distinct letters, ligatures or abbreviations.