The Voynich Ninja

Quote:I see nothing particularly unusual in these letters.

Are they just "d" to you?

Compare "d" in the top row. It's different. The bottom is round and closed and the top is wider. Here it looks like "e" with some minim.

(02-12-2025, 12:29 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:I see nothing particularly unusual in these letters.

Are they just "d" to you?

Compare "d" in the top row. It's different. The bottom is round and closed and the top is wider. Here it looks like "e" with some minim.

Yes, it is a different version of d-like character. It's not very unusual, though, I think there are hundreds of them in the MS.

PS. I can't tell if it's just "d", I have no idea what the underlying character set of the Voynich manuscript looks like, but it's almost certainly not the same as EVA. This would be an extremely lucky outcome. More likely some of different EVA characters are the same underlying symbol and some different underlying symbols map to the same EVA character point, but I have no idea which ones are these.

(02-12-2025, 11:21 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The question is why he never repaired the entire symbol, even though the rest is just as thin

Presumably the original traces that were retraced were much fainter than those that were left as such (namely the lower part of the left leg, and its upper tip). 

Note that the o and (partially) the plume of the r had already been retraced by an earlier pass.  You can see the original, fainter traces under the retracing ones.

Retracing a glyph had to be quite a bit slower than scribing it originally, and required constant concentration.  The Retracer could not just let his hand do the job, as the original Scribe did; he had to look at the original trace and follow it as best as he could.  Thus it makes sense that he would retrace only the parts of a glyph that really needed retracing. 

All the best, --stolfi

(02-12-2025, 11:26 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Look closely. It's the same swing.

I can't be sure, but I think it is not the "same swing".  I believe that the original plume of the n was traced in a continuous motion from the bottom of the i stroke, with lower pressure on the pen, going counterclockwise, and ending in a "mousetail" trace -- tapering gradually to a sharp point.  Whereas, in the darker ink, the plume was traced clockwise in a separate stroke, causing it to be uniformly thick, with a butt (square) end at the top left.  Which is in fact one of the signs of a retraced plume.

And the same goes for the plume on the Sh. That is not what a natural plume was supposed to look line.

All the best, --stolfi

(02-12-2025, 11:28 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I remember your post about the visual gag, if you are referring to the hole in the parchment and the hand of a nymph.

Yes.  That gag was clearly visible in some B&W images of f72r1:
[attachment=12782]
Namely, the arm of the nymph at 08:30, Miss oparalar,  is drawn as if she was holding a star from f73r, while an extra arm was drawn on f72r1 to make it seem that the 09:00 nymph of f73r, Miss kar,  was holding oparalar's star.
 
This gag is not visible in the BL scans, because the folios were lifted off the book when they were imaged.  

Quote:In your scenario, was this gag copied from a draft too?

No.  I believe that the only significant contents of the Zodiac pages are the text rings and the labels. And that is all that would have been on the draft.  The Scribe provided everything else from his imagination - nymphs and stars, and their hairdos, hats, tails, barrels, etc.  And that gag.

All the best, --stolfi

(02-12-2025, 02:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I believe that the only significant contents of the Zodiac pages are the text rings and the labels. And that is all that would have been on the draft.  The Scribe provided everything else from his imagination - nymphs and stars, and their hairdos, hats, tails, barrels, etc.  And that gag.

This is certainly consistent with the other preexisting defects in the vellum getting lampshaded by the graphics, and to a lesser extent, the text layout.

[Continuing the discussion here from the "Was The Paint Later" thread. [Why is this thread filed under Voynich Research->Voynich Talk?]]

(09-12-2025, 03:39 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not "few" [examples of different strokes are overwritten on one another], but hundreds.  Name any page.

I'm only aware of two occasions at the beginning of a line.

I have posted many other examples on this thread.  Again, name any page, I bet I can find some evidence that can't be easily explained in some other way. 

Quote:

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But there are many cases where these explanations don't work.  Like when the retraced glyph is clearly a misreading of the original.

This argument would totally work if you somehow produced the original of the Voynich Manuscript, in its unretraced glory, to compare to. Up until then it's just an interpretation of which glyphs are "good" and which ones are "bad", and our interpretations of this clearly differ.

But there are examples where the good glyph can be discerned from under a retraced hapax weirdo.  Like (D) on the clip from f1v below [attachment=12870]
That glyph as it stands is not only a weirdo, but it uses a "reverse plume" stroke that does not seem to be used anywhere else.  

You may say that the Author/Scribe intended to use that glyph for "unknown reasons".  My explanation is that the glyph was originally an ordinary Sh, but an insect scraped a furrow between the two es (you can barely see it as a rougher texture on the blank vellum), erasing the right half of the plume.  The Retracer saw the remaining half-plume floating on the air, and since its left endpoint was close to the first e, he assumed that it was connected there, and "restored" it as such, extending the ligature of the Ch to the left to meet the "fixed" plume.  This "restoration" (B) is in visibly darker ink.

The (I) cese is similar.  The o with a detached plume must be very rare, if not unique.  My reading is that the original glyph was an s, but an insect ate away the right half of the plume and a bit of the e body.  The Retracer apparently did not see the plume, and restored what remained of the body as an o.

There are many other examples like that.  Again, name a page. I bet that there will be several hints of retracing, and possibly other examples like that one.

Quote:The "explanations" for me are only as good as they are able to advance us on our way of achieving this. The explanation that maybe a considerable portion of the manuscript are some doodles and scribbles unrelated to the original text is not helping here

But, if confirmed, the MRT would help a lot!  It would let us ignore many baffling details (like the crowns and the robot tentacle) as spurious late interventions, and conversely let us consider readings and theories that we can't consider if we assume that All Ink Is Original (and, worse, All Ink is Intentional). 

All the best, --stolfi

(09-12-2025, 07:53 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have posted many other examples on this thread.  Again, name any page, I bet I can find some evidence that can't be easily explained in some other way. 

I think I've seen all the images you posted, we just don't agree on what they show.

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But there are examples where the good glyph can be discerned from under a retraced hapax weirdo.  Like (D) on the clip from f1v below
That glyph as it stands is not only a weirdo, but it uses a "reverse plume" stroke that does not seem to be used anywhere else.  

Yes, the reverse plume is rare. I can find a calculus textbook that would use a lot of Δ's and would en passant mention PDF's on one page and use a ∇. Obviously, it was retraced, right? Poor guy couldn't even copy a proper delta.

I cannot "discern" the "good glyph" in this example. The reverse plume looks quite deliberate and properly executed.

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The (I) cese is similar.  The o with a detached plume must be very rare, if not unique.  My reading is that the original glyph was an s, but an insect ate away the right half of the plume and a bit of the e body.  The Retracer apparently did not see the plume, and restored what remained of the body as an o.

This does not look like a plume, but like some dirt or stain on the vellum. I think it goes all the way down to the bottom of h. Doesn't look like a deliberate stroke.

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, if confirmed, the MRT would help a lot!  It would let us ignore many baffling details (like the crowns and the robot tentacle) as spurious late interventions, and conversely let us consider readings and theories that we can't consider if we assume that All Ink Is Original (and, worse, All Ink is Intentional). 

It is perfectly possible to ignore any details in the manuscript if needed without inventing a whole theory for this. Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way.

(09-12-2025, 08:50 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The (I) cese is similar.  The o with a detached plume must be very rare, if not unique.  My reading is that the original glyph was an s, but an insect ate away the right half of the plume and a bit of the e body.  The Retracer apparently did not see the plume, and restored what remained of the body as an o.

This does not look like a plume, but like some dirt or stain on the vellum. I think it goes all the way down to the bottom of h. Doesn't look like a deliberate stroke.

Here's four more "strokes" like this one. They are just not placed conveniently enough for MRT, it's likely there is no real difference between them.

[attachment=12872]

(09-12-2025, 08:50 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-12-2025, 02:55 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The (I) case is similar.  The o with a detached plume must be very rare, if not unique.

This does not look like a plume, but like some dirt or stain on the vellum.

I concede that one.

Quote:[As for (D,B),] I can find a calculus textbook that would use a lot of Δ's and would en passant mention PDF's on one page and use a ∇. Obviously, it was retraced, right? Poor guy couldn't even copy a proper delta. I cannot "discern" the "good glyph" in this example. The reverse plume looks quite deliberate and properly executed.

Sigh.  Just say that you don't want to even entertain the possibility that one glyph may have been retraced by a later owner, and let's move on.

Quote:It is perfectly possible to ignore any details in the manuscript if needed without inventing a whole theory for this. Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way.

But you showed that you will not do that in this case.  "If it looks like a nabla, the Author must have meant a nabla"...

All the best, --stolfi