(11-11-2025, 06:40 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.know from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that apparent single voynich glyphs may be inserted into seemingly latin words.
Ahem!... Or, rather, that an ignorant owner who tried to reconstruct a heavily faded/washed Voynichese text would sometime reconstruct a smudge as a Voynichese glyph, maybe even the correct one -- rather than as a Latin letter...
All the best, --stolfi
What a funny forum this is!
The only one who presented a reasonable argument against this translation was Koen. He questioned the f with a loop, and rightly so. However, I was able to verify the f with a loop using two sources, one of which had a character set that matched the time period and also contained the "h" in the fourth word, “her.” So double proof.= 100 percent certain.
This was followed by a blanket condemnation by Stolfi, which he then withdrew with an apology after he had to admit that he was not familiar with the explanations.
This was followed by another blanket condemnation by Bernd without any justification, but with reference to two links that refer to 116r. What do I have to do with 116r? There is talk of “mental gymnastics.” Obviously, he also did not read the explanations, or did not understand them, I don't know.
I have often seen such “mental gymnastics,” especially in relation to 116r, but it usually differs considerably from what I have done. Precisely because there is a lack of comprehensible evidence and proof.
I would like to say the following about this: Such blanket condemnations are unscientific and arrogant!
But I have the right to defend myself in science, and that is what I will now do.
That the l in luc3 is a f is clearly documented! You can see the stroke at least on the right side of the letter.
The c is a reasonable assumption.
Hopefully, no one will doubt that 3 = m and the macron = omitted letter are 100% certain.
It follows that the probability that luc3 is fucum is extremely high.
It is 100% certain that fucum can also mean bee resin/propolis.
So far, I don't see any hint of “mental gymnastics.”
That the "u" in mulher is a capital A - how blind do you have to be to not see that based on the new high-resolution screenshots? 100% certain.
It is clearly proven that an A can have a loop to its right. Also 100% proven.
If that is a capital A, then the "m" stands alone before it. And it is also clearly proven that a single “m” without a macron can mean magister.
The fourth word “her'” with an apostrophe in a botanical context on a page about herbs: = herba / herbis: highly plausible.
The h in mulher is not an h, as proven by the h in “her” 100 percent certain.
If, in a botanical context in which a word can also mean resin/propolis, I have:
Magister AXiar' (x as a variable) is Apiar from Apiarius, which is more than obvious.
And if the x in Axiar' is a P, then appar' immediately follows.
This is all normal scientific deduction and procedure, and so far there is no sign of “mental gymnastics,” sorry, but that is total nonsense!
And to prevent further discussion, I had marked the last three words as “speculative”; they are also in very poor condition, so any solution here must always be speculative. I thought it was an elegant solution, as it gave the clearly verifiable sentence fragment an interesting direction. But this was obviously misunderstood, so I am withdrawing this speculative solution in the course of further discussion.
Conclusion: The translation of the first four words presented here is scientifically verifiable and highly logical, thus far from “mental gymnastics.” Such comments without further justification are indeed what is “tiresome” and demonstrate how little attention some people here are willing to pay to the opinions of others.
Jost
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Stolfi posted] an apology after he had to admit that he was not familiar with the explanations.
The apology was only for posting a comment about You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. to the wrong thread (f17r).
I still hold my interpretation of the marginalia on both pages.
All the best, --stolfi
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Conclusion: The translation of the first four words presented here is scientifically verifiable and highly logical, thus far from “mental gymnastics.” Such comments without further justification are indeed what is “tiresome” and demonstrate how little attention some people here are willing to pay to the opinions of others.
As far as I understand, "mental gymnastics" here refers to creatively combining one of many possible or plausible interpretations of each individual element in a way that produces resemblance of coherence. If you want a step by step:
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That the l in luc3 is a f is clearly documented! You can see the stroke at least on the right side of the letter.
I disagree. The stroke is visible in IR with about the same intensity as in UV. So, it's likely this is not ink, maybe some dirt or some defect of the vellum.
In any case you cannot make a definite conclusion from a single faint stroke. At most I can say this
could be f, but very unlikely.
[
attachment=12231]
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The c is a reasonable assumption.
Why?
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hopefully, no one will doubt that 3 = m and the macron = omitted letter are 100% certain.
They seem likely to many people. Far from certain.
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It follows that the probability that luc3 is fucum is extremely high.
Highly unlikely as far as I can see.
(12-11-2025, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That the "u" in mulher is a capital A - how blind do you have to be to not see that based on the new high-resolution screenshots? 100% certain.
Nearly 0% as far as I'm concerned.
Etc, etc.
(12-11-2025, 12:16 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The stroke is visible in IR with about the same intensity as in UV. So, it's likely this is not ink, maybe some dirt or some defect of the vellum.
According to You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.,
Quote:Further, Fe is not only the main inorganic component of iron gall inks but also of ochre pigments, which were not only also used for underdrawing paintings but also often appear as pigments in paint layers. ... iron gall inks absorb IR radiation up to 1200 nm [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.] (p. 58) (Additional file You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: Suppl 2),You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. while ochre already become transparent at 850 nm [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.] (p. 16).
Now people may want to have another look at those multispectral scans...
All the best, --stolfi
It's getting funnier and funnier
The f needs a crossbar to distinguish it from the s and the l. I'm not sure if you want to question that too, but never mind.
[
attachment=12233]
In the picture, you can clearly see this crossbar, even if it is a little too big, but he also wrote very small. You can follow the trace exactly and even see where he lifted the pen, blue arrow.
But of course, one can always assume that it is a smudge; anything in such small writing can be a smudge. At this level, there is no need to discuss it further, I realise that – see below.
The c was also discussed here in the thread itself. What else can I say about it? I honestly find it difficult.
The same goes for the A. If you are unable to recognise that this is a glyph in the shape of an A, I am not surprised that you have given up hope of deciphering the Voynich text.
No, no one doubts that the 3 is a brevigraph for an m, and no one doubts that a macron indicates an omitted letter. That would turn the entire history of the Latin language upside down. At most, one can doubt whether this is a 3 or a macron. But I didn't write that. Of course, one can doubt everything, even doubts.
But honestly, I don't want to continue this discussion at this level. I had actually hoped that this forum would be different from the many forums on other topics. But it's no different after all, which is a shame. I was looking forward to a constructive exchange, but in fact found only the usual stupid. And that doesn't just apply to this discussion.
The only logical consequence for me: I'm out of here and won't be responding to any more posts; my time is too precious for that.
Farewell...
(12-11-2025, 02:28 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the picture, you can clearly see this crossbar, even if it is a little too big, but he also wrote very small. You can follow the trace exactly and even see where he lifted the pen, blue arrow.
There is a crossbar, but on MSIs it is substantially different from the rest of the writing, so it's probably extraneous to the writing. Could be a later addition, could be an earlier mark, could be dirt. But it's far from certain that this stroke is made with the same ink as the rest of the inscription.
(12-11-2025, 02:28 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The c was also discussed here in the thread itself. What else can I say about it? I honestly find it difficult.
There have been several readings for this symbol in this thread. "c" is one of them, but there were more ("e", "t", or just a flourish of 3, if I remember correctly).
(12-11-2025, 02:28 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The same goes for the A. If you are unable to recognise that this is a glyph in the shape of an A, I am not surprised that you have given up hope of deciphering the Voynich text.
It doesn't look likely to me that this is an A. Also, I still consider the chances that the manuscript will be deciphered in the nearest future quite high, I have no idea if my effort will play any role, but there seems to be slow and steady progress with many competing approaches from many people. So my hopes are quite high.
(12-11-2025, 02:28 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, no one doubts that the 3 is a brevigraph for an m, and no one doubts that a macron indicates an omitted letter. That would turn the entire history of the Latin language upside down. At most, one can doubt whether this is a 3 or a macron. But I didn't write that. Of course, one can doubt everything, even doubts.
This is correct, I'm not arguing that 3 could not signify an m, I'm arguing that this is not the only possibility. For example, at the very beginning of this thread 3 was interpreted as Z.
(12-11-2025, 01:41 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now people may want to have another look at those multispectral scans...
I'm not sure if the disappearance of the ink in IR means that it's transparent or that it just absorbs at similar rate as the parchment,
compared to some of the paint which looks really high contrast black. I took the far IR image (940nm) and tried to apply correction to it to increase the contrast at the levels of black corresponding to the text. A lot of the text is still visible, so the ink is not totally transparent in IR. But I'm completely unqualified to make any conclusions from this. I can only tell if something behaves like the text ink of the MS or not based on MSIs, I have no idea what different substances should look like.
[
attachment=12237]
(12-11-2025, 03:30 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure if the disappearance of the ink in IR means that it's transparent or that it just absorbs at similar rate as the parchment, compared to some of the paint which looks really high contrast black. I took the far IR image (940nm) and tried to apply correction to it to increase the contrast at the levels of black corresponding to the text. A lot of the text is still visible, so the ink is not totally transparent in IR.
When the article says "
ochre [inks]
already become transparent at 850 nm", I understand that means "noticeably transparent compared to what they look like at shorter wavelengths, and by 1200 nm, where iron-gall is still black, ochre inks are completely gone.
If you look at other IR wavelengths, you will see that the transition is not abrupt. The ink fades gradually as the wavelength increases.
So I don't think that the fact that some glyphs still very faintly visible at 940 nm contradicts that article. In any case, the ink is definitely not iron-gall.
The brown pigment of the ink is probably not ocher, which is a brownish yellow orange. It is more likely to be sienna or umber, which are mineral mixtures similar to ocher but with some amount of other black iron oxides or of manganese dioxide, which makes them darker brown. Manganese dioxide may well be more opaque than ocher beyond 850 nm; if so, that may be what keeps the text still barely visible at 940.
All the best, --stolfi
(12-11-2025, 06:57 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[When the article says "ochre [inks] already become transparent at 850 nm", I understand that means "noticeably transparent compared to what they look like at shorter wavelengths, and by 1200 nm, where iron-gall is still black, ochre inks are completely gone.
If you look at other IR wavelengths, you will see that the transition is not abrupt. The ink fades gradually as the wavelength increases.
But is it possible to determine if they became transparent or just nearly the same shade as the parchment? If you look at the parchment in processed MSI images, it looks nearly the same shade, just because it occupies the largest portion of the image, so when performing level/gamma/white point correction the parchment dominates the image. I'm not sure if absolute levels are preserved in the original TIFFs. Maybe it's not the ink getting lighter, maybe it's the parchment getting darker.