The Voynich Ninja

(30-09-2025, 10:28 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, that is definitely not what I am arguing. It's just that [n] turns out to be a useful diagnostic for quickly determining which scribe one is looking at. This is true for just about any kind of script...there are always one or two graphemes that are particularly useful for distinguishing between scribes. It just so happens that, for Voynichese, [n] and [k] (and [f] to a lesser extent) are useful diagnostic glyphs, along with the general aspect of Scribes 1 and 2 in particular. Many of the glyphs are paleographically useless, such as [a], , and [o], so it is not worth the time to describe them. 

In 12th-century Germany, for example, you want to look at [&], [g], and the question mark. In 14th-century England, [a] is particularly useful. In 15th-c. Italy, the Tironian [et] abbreviation is a good diagnostic, among other letters. But of course you want to consider more graphemes in your research. It just isn't worth the ink, paper, and time to describe them if they do not move the argument forward. They only add static and noise. A concise and effective academic argument focuses on salient details, which is what I have done.

Unfortunately, the [n]-glyph exhibits the greatest degree of variation—not only across the folios you attribute to a single scribe, but even within individual folios. How do you account for this extent of intra-scribe variation? Likewise, how do you explain the instances where Scribe 1 has clearly rendered the [k]-glyph with two distinct strokes, despite your claim that the distinction between one- and two-stroke forms serves as a diagnostic feature for separating scribes?

In addition, when examining other common glyphs such as [o], there are cases where even the [o]-glyph seems to have been written with two strokes. For example, in otodar on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the execution suggests a two-stroke formation. How does this align with your proposed diagnostic framework?
[attachment=11533]

I'm sorry, Torsten, but I'm just not going to rehash this with you again. We've been discussing this for five years now. You don't agree with me. That's fine.

(30-09-2025, 11:19 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sorry, Torsten, but I'm just not going to rehash this with you again. We've been discussing this for five years now. You don't agree with me. That's fine.

Back in 2020, your response to my question about intra-scribe variation was:

Quote:Thanks for taking the time to go through my work so carefully, Torsten. I see your point, but as I mentioned when you brought this up on Twitter a few days ago, paleography is about tendencies, not about absolutes. These scribes are human, writing by hand, and even the most careful calligrapher is not going to make each character exactly the same every time. That's what the printing press is for. My conclusions are based on tendencies visible over the length of a scribe's corpora.

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

At the time, my reply was:

Quote:Since paleography includes some subjective elements I find it especially important to understand the methodology used. In other words, also in paleography methodology matters. You wrote in your article 'Folio 57v is somewhat problematic: there is too little text to reliable run Currier's dialect tests, ...' (Davis 2020, p. 176). Now you say the 'conclusions are based on tendencies over the length of a scribe's corpora'. This sounds to me as if the corpora of a scribe was first determined by taking 'Currier's dialect tests' and the illustrations into account. Is my understanding correct?

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I never received an answer to this question, which remains central to evaluating the foundations of your five-scribe hypothesis.

I'm locking this thread before it becomes more unpleasant.