| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 460 online users.
» 3 Member(s) | 453 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, DonaldFisk, eggyk
|
|
|
| How is [x] used in medieval German? |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 21-07-2023, 01:40 PM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (28)
|
 |
Regarding the question if "pox" can be a genitive form, we need a situation where the scribe decided to replace the usual spelling /cks/ by /x/. Did this ever happen? When did scribes use /x/ to begin with?
As a quick test, I went through the cookbooks transcribed at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. These are the situations:
* /x/ is not used at all: B1, B2, B5, B6, Br1, Bs1, Er1, Ha1, Hi1, M1, M7, M8, Mi1, N2, Pr1, Sb1, St1, Ste1, W2, Wol1
* /x/ is only used in Latin numerals: B3, B4, Bs2, Db1, Er2, H2, H3, H4, Ka1, Ka2, Ka3, Ko1, M2, M5, M6, M9, M10, M11, N1, Pa1, So1, W1, W4, Wo2, Wo3, Wo4
* /x/ is only used in Latin numerals and paragraphs of Latin text: A1, K1, Sb2
* /x/ is used in Latin loanwords within the German text: Ds1
* /x/ is used in German words: Gr1, Sb3, Wo1, Wo7, Wo8, Wo9, Wo10, Wo11
Summary: 46 manuscripts in this selection do not use /x/ at all, or only as a Roman numeral. Four additional manuscripts only use it in Latin words. Only 8 manuscripts use /x/ in German words, and most of those are later than the 15th century.
The manuscripts that use /x/ in German words show the following examples:
Gr1: sex, waxein, wax, wüext, braxsenn
Sb3: sex
Wo1 (16th or 17th century): oxn, bix
Wo7 (16th century): flux, oxen, wax, waxen, weixel, weixsel
Wo8 (17th century): bix
Wo9 (17th century): weixell, weixel, weÿxel, weixeltaig, oxenzungen
Wo10 (16th century): Mastix, Weyxel, weÿxlen, bux, oxen, wax
Wo11 (16th century): Oximell, laxiert, simplex, complexi, Storax (Latin loanwords)
An interesting observation here is that /x/ tends to gravitate towards certain words that become associated with it: ox, wax, bix, weixel. I did not encounter a single situation where an incidental /ks/ like in the genitive pocks is replaced by /x/.
Hence, it is possible that the spelling /pox/ became associates with expletive use, but it is in my opinion much less likely for a simple genitive of pock, "male goat".
This was just a small selection of manuscripts, but they do paint a certain picture of the use of /x/ in 15th century German texts. Maybe counterexamples can be found.
|
|
|
| Voynich 1.01 TTF Font |
|
Posted by: dashstofsk - 13-07-2023, 10:53 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (7)
|
 |
Does anyone here use the Voynich 1.01 TTF font? The font file name is 'voynich.ttf' and I downloaded it from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I have an issue with it. It is that when I use this font in MS Word words at the end of a line are split and the split segment is moved to the next line. So when I look at a word at the beginning of a line I can never be sure if it is a whole word or the end part of the word that was truncated on the previous line. It must be something wrong with the font because this behaviour never happens with the EVA Hand 1 font ( filename 'eva1.ttf' ).
Does anyone have a solution to this?
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
| I made a VM consideration video |
|
Posted by: februs - 08-07-2023, 02:38 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- No Replies
|
 |
here's a VM consideration video I made recently about the celestial bodies section.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Here's a video consideration video of the first plant section
It's has about 75,000 plays
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Please let me know what you think (*- -)(*_ _)ペコリ
|
|
|
|
| Works on the VMS by Jeffrey P. Krischer |
|
Posted by: bi3mw - 07-07-2023, 04:48 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (7)
|
 |
In "The Voynich Manuscript - An elegant Enigma" Jeffrey Krischer is introduced in chapter 6.7. At one point it says: "At the time of writing his paper Krischer planned to carry out further studies."
I have not heard of this Voynich researcher yet. All I could find were the following entries:
JSTOR, Directory of Scholars Active
---------------------------------------
*L493. Analysis of the Voynich Manuscript
Chief investigator: Jeffrey P. Krischer, 380-A Great Road, Acton, MA 01720.
Scope: To perform an analysis of the language of the Voynich manuscript in an effort to
determine the grammar and usage for translation.
Type of computer used: IBM 360/65, PDP 1, CDC 6400. Language and level: FORTRAN,
MIDAS.
Does anyone know of any publications by this researcher ? After all, he is mentioned in one breath with Friedman, Tiltmann, Currier etc..
Edit:
Here is a find on a paper by Krischer from 1969:
Krischer, J. "The Voynich Manuscript." A term paper for Linguistics 205, Harvard University, Spring 1969.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| f66r - mandelmus? |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 19-06-2023, 08:54 PM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (12)
|
|
I've spent quite some time looking at medieval cookbooks in German these days, and one of the things I noticed is that they often include the ingredient "mandel", i.e almonds. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that gave us the previously noticed attestation "mandelmich", also has a recipe form "mandelmuos":
Quote:So du wilt machen ein mandelmus . so nim mandelmilch . vnd semelin broet . vnd snide daz wuerfeleht vnd tuo daz in die mandelmilch vnd erwelle daz . vnd nim einen apfel vnd snit den wuerfeleht . vnd roest den in eime smaltze . vnd tuo daz vf daz mandelmuos . vnd gibz hin .
If you want to make almond butter, then take almond milk, and some kind of bread etc...
Ever since I learned about the medieval cook's love for "mandeln", something kept nagging at me about f66r. It's probably nothing, since it requires a number of steps to be true and then still isn't perfect. But then again, perfect is much to ask in a Voynich context.
Apart from the separate glyph, we've got three "words". All four chunks of text (the glyph and the three words) are thrown haphazardly onto the page. There is no clear line or paragraph. This is the first 'stretch': we would need the order to be left-middle-right (*en *el mus) rather than top-bottom (*en mus *el).
The second issue is the two first letters that appear messed up. The bottom word appears to have been written as "mel" first, then corrected to "del". We can see that the word on the left probably said "den" first, but was corrected to something hidden in the fold of the page. So what if they had accidentally switched "m" and "d"? Wrote "denmel" instead of "mendel"?
The third problem is of course that the vowel is an "e" instead of an "a", at least I think it's an e.
Normally I wouldn't give it a second thought, but "pox leber" and "so nim" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also point towards recipes. And the first letters have been corrected. An accidental switching of "m" and "d" would explain why. "Mendelmus" does not ignore the corrections but takes them into account.
The syllabification might have a whole range of explanations. It would also be present in the "den musdel" interpretation.
Anyway, it will probably remain unsolved, but I thought I'd add this to the options.
|
|
|
|
| -m,-g typically ends a line. |
|
Posted by: Addsamuels - 19-06-2023, 03:18 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (10)
|
 |
According to voynichese, there are 1105 matches with the letter m in them, 778 are line ends.
For a strong *m search, there are 1092 matches, 768 are line-ends.
It's a similar story with *g with 62/80 line ends and for just g, 71/96 are line ends.
|
|
|
|
| Collecting comparative data for the f116v script |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 12-06-2023, 08:51 AM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (15)
|
|
A lot of uncertainties remain about the handwriting of the German-Latin-like text of f116v. Could it have been written by the Voynich scribes, or does it belong in a slightly later period? Are some of its features unique, or are they found elsewhere? Do some features point to a specific region, and if so, how specific? Sometimes, we see a script that looks and feels the same, but looks may be deceiving, so we need to come up with a standard way of comparing and assessing comparative scripts.
Inspired by Katie Painter and Claire Bowern's paper You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (presented at the Malta conference), Marco Ponzi and I got talking about doing something similar for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. script. We discussed which letters to include, and their most important paleographic features. I compiled everything in a google drive doc and added some images for clarification.
(removed old link)
Now if we are to learn anything new from this, we will need lots of data. Therefore, the whole thing has been set up with collaboration in mind. First, we have to make sure that our categories are clear and well-selected. So if you are somewhat familiar with the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. script, please have a look. Did we forget anything important? Is anything unclear?
Then, if you would like to collaborate on this project, even if it is just by adding one manuscript every once in a while, please let me know and I will invite you to be an editor on the file.
Some notes:
- In the images, green means good, red means bad. When something is circled in red, it is a counterexample.
- We did not include certain glyphs that were too problematic:
- "8"-shaped glyphs, there is still too much discussion about whether they are 'd' or short-'s' or both
- 'i', it is too variable
- 't' and 'c', they can be too difficult to tell apart in this kind of script
- We did include 'c' as part of the 'ch' ligature
Tips for filling in the file:
- Manuscripts can have multiple scribes. To make sure that you stick with one scribe, ideally look at one or a few adjacent folios.
- A form needs to be somewhat common. For example, a feature of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. script is that the bottom of 'a' is open. If you hunt through a manuscript for any 'a' with an open bottom, you will probably find one, but this is not the point. If a scribe closes all of his 'a' on a page apart from one, then his 'a' is closed.
- It is clear that we are looking at the bastarda/gothic cursive family of scripts, but within that family it will be useful to include a lot of variation. I have been testing it mostly with 15th century German manuscripts so far, but we also need 14th century, 16th century, England, France... Just to get a more well-rounded data set. Got a favorite manuscript? Put it in there!
- The total is automatically calculated in the blue column. Expect scores to be low! The maximum to be obtained is 25, but it will be a challenge to find anything over 15. A good score is around 10, an awesome score is between 10 and 15.
So let me know if there is anything you would like to see changed, and if you would like to help with this project!
|
|
|
|
|