| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
|
|
| Interesting Vwords - those pesky 4o vords |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 13-08-2017, 05:46 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (2)
|
 |
I am not convinced that there is meaning behind the VMS text, or that it's natural language or has any linguistic significance, but I'm keeping an open mind because someone spent a lot of time creating it and it's clearly not random text. So, I try to look for patterns that reveal how it was constructed.
While looking through the text, I noticed this interesting contrast...
Each of these is a unique vord, with the exception of keeey which occurs twice:
Plant 5r Plant 49r Plant 50v Plant 38v Folio 116r Sagittarius
---------- ------------ --------- ----------- -------------- --------------
qoykeeey oykeeey ykeeey keeey > keeey eeey
It looks exciting if viewed as a deliberate pattern, possibly a "connector" between folios, but... is it?
In contrast, another 4o vord behaves like this:
275 times 87 times 50 times 2 times 2 times 106 times
------------- ----------- ----------- --------- ---------- -------------
qokeedy okeedy keedy eedy edy dy
Superficially, qoykeeey and qokeedy appear similar, but they behave very differently. The first (qoykeeey) is a unique vord that breaks down into more unique vords by removing the first letter. One might almost suspect a system of pointers, as are used in programming languages to connect data in different places. In contrast, the second (qokeedy) is common, and breaks down into additional vords that are not unique.
So it's not as simple as looking at unique vords with morphological similarities (length, glyphs) to see if they have a connecting function. Might there be a linguistic explanation?
In linguistic terms, there are situations that might explain the first pattern. For example, in English, the sequence nascent > ascent > scent > cent resembles the first set of Vwords. They are all words in their own right, and don't necessarily have to have any relationship to one other in terms of meaning—only the letter patterns are similar.
IF (this is a big "if") qoykeeey and qokeedy are linguistic and IF (this is an even bigger "if" and one of which I am very skeptical) the VMS were a substitution code, then one could look for patterns in a variety of languages where some letter combinations are rare (as in the first example) and others are common (as in the second) in terms of breaking down into viable words if the leading letter is dropped.
I'm not sure how fruitful this line of investigation would be. I see the ok "prefix" as far too common to mesh with natural language patterns, but I decided to post it anyway because a pattern of patterns, studied over time, might lead to other insights.
|
|
|
| Voynich theories and Voynich solutions |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 12-08-2017, 10:20 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (58)
|
 |
The last sentence in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from JKP is one thing among several that made me finally write the present post, about Voynich theories, how to prove or disprove them, and the question: whom are we trying to convince.
There are different types of Voynich theories. For the sake of this argument I classify them into three groups.
1. Unspecific / non-controversial
This is what I'd consider the 'easiest' group. It includes proposals like: "it could be the diary of a travelling monk", the "notebook of a student" and in fact many of the suggestions that are proposed and discussed in fora like this.
Most of the time, it is hard to say anything against them, and it is often a matter of taste how convincing the arguments for or against it are. They are rarely the subject of heated debate. One could often say: "not sure but could be".
2. Translations
These form a very specific group. There are far more proposed translations coming up than is visible to the various fora. The thread to which I linked above is just one of five or six that I have been confronted with in the last half year.
The "good" part of proposed translations is that they are susceptible to quantitative arguments.
The people proposing translations (or similar types of solutions) come in all possible forms. Some are reasonable. Many are adamant. Some are not reasonable (spamming, annoying the staff of Yale, suspecting conspiracies, etc.).
3. Controversial provenance
This vague group includes theories that usually do not include a way to interpret the text, but they are not conforming to all or part of the evidence related to the history of the MS.
This includes (among others) the several different versions of "Kelly did it", the Meso-American theory defended by several partly independent people, and the modern fake theory, which recently showed up again in Koen's blog.
Again, the people proposing these theories come in all possible forms.
The question I really wanted to address in this post is: how much effort and energy should one put in trying to show that any theory is wrong?
Is it worth the effort?
The sentiment of JKP in the post I linked is a very understandable one: people may be misled in believing things that are, in reality wrong. This especially seems a problem if they are in no good position to judge it for themselves.
Usually, the proponents of new theories are asking for feedback. Not rarely, they are expecting acceptance.
Going into this discussion is always reasonable.
It is depending on how this discussion evolves, that one should wonder whether it is useful / worthwhile to continue it.
There are indeed people who refuse to accept any argument against what they are proposing. Without giving names, we have seen that here in the forum too. Outside the forum, this is also happening, and not infrequently.
If the proponent of a theory cannot be convinced of being wrong, is it still worth to argue, in order to convince the "rest of the world"?
As for me, personally, I am confronted with so many different cases, that I don't even have a chance to do it.
I will read all proposed solutions. After all, who knows...
But apart from that I simply have to prioritise what to do with my limited "Voynich time".
Other opinions on this topic are very welcome.
|
|
|
|
| The Takeshi Takahashi transcription |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 10-08-2017, 08:46 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (18)
|
|
I just noticed two days ago that the version of Takeshi's transciption that is in the interlinear file is quite different from the version on his web site.
First five line in interlinear file:
Quote:<f1r.P1.1;H> fachys.ykal.ar.ataiin.shol.shory.cthres.y.kor.sholdy-
<f1r.P1.2;H> sory.ckhar.o!r.y.kair.chtaiin.shar.are.cthar.cthar.dan-
<f1r.P1.3;H> syaiir.sheky.or.ykaiin.shod.cthoary.cthes.daraiin.sa-
<f1r.P1.4;H> o{&o'}oiin.oteey.oteos.roloty.cth*ar.daiin.otaiin.or.okan-
<f1r.P1.5;H> dair.y.chear.cthaiin.cphar.cfhaiin=
His version:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(I am not concerned about the comments and the wrappings, just the transcribed text.
I know that his transcription is being used by several people, and I wonder which of the two sources people tend to use.
I will try to contact him, to find out if he updated it in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
| f34v |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 07-08-2017, 09:15 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (65)
|
 |
I'd like to offer a possible explanation for at least part of this folio. The story goes as follows:
Over at the comments on my blog, Rene was talking about weasels. My mind kind of drifted off at this point, and I ended up wondering which funny stories medieval bestiaries would tell about the weasel. It appears that one of the things weasels do is conceive through their mouths and give birth through their ears. According to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Isidore wrote about this behavior but added that these claims are false, which implies that he is not the origin of this tale.
A graphic representation of two weasels mating in this fashion is a marginal drawing in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (England, 1310-1320). The weasels have clearly different body lengths, which makes them a fine parallel for the zoomorphic root of our plant:
weasels.jpg (Size: 50.65 KB / Downloads: 441)
Now I would have let this slide if it weren't for one thing: the root animals' genital appendages are intertwined. Which is mating-but-not-really-mating while joining their heads.
So the animals might be mating weasels.
Next, which plants are associated with weasels?
Pliny mentions the herb rue, but in my opinion this does not look like the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. plant at all.
But there was something else. I remember that when we were discussing the enigmatic Trinity herbal, I saw a plant with an anecdote about birds and weasels: sticados citrinum. Marco kindly translated the passage as follows:
Some call it "herb of the birds" because a certain bird puts some of this herb in its nest. Similarly, also the weasel does the same in its nest, because the weasel and that bird know | its [of the plant] virtue.
Again, the image does not look much like the VM plant (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. f.74r).
But, and now I get to the point, sticados apparently means lavender. This does not explain the VM plant's round leaves at all, but strangely it does explain the flowers - remember that the VM does not utilize a lavender-like color.
lavender.jpg (Size: 86.32 KB / Downloads: 432)
Image top right credited as: Lo sticados, dal codice “Historia Plantarum”, fine XIV secolo
Bottom: Lavandula stoechas
So if there is a link with weasels and lavender here (and that's a big if), then it would mean that the plant image is composite... any ideas?
|
|
|
|
| Listen to the violets. |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 06-08-2017, 06:51 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (3)
|
|
There are many discrepancies and incongruities in the VMs. Can it be a valid historical artifact approximating the parchment dates? Or is is a modern forgery? Clearly there is a certain cumulative uneasiness with calling these odd illustrations a clear and accurate representation of reality, but is there sufficient evidence to substantiate invalidation?
Everyone knows that there is an illustration of violets early on in the VMs. Unlike many of the other botanical illustrations in the VMs, the violets are quite realistic, with the single caveat that the flowers are all upside down. Why are the flowers inverted? Either they have wilted or there is some other reason.
Virtually anyone who would try to draw a violet, would have seen an actual violet (or an illustration of an actual violet) and therefore would know the proper orientation of a violet blossom. And a person who intended to draw an accurate representation of a violet would probably draw the blossoms in their natural (not inverted) orientation. The depiction of violets in a wilted condition is an unexpected representation.
Is there another reason to depict inverted violet blossoms? Are the blossoms inverted in the attempt to create something of an exotic appearance? Considering the rest of the botanical illustrations, that might be a possibility. There are these stories coming out of the early medieval era as to whether the Earth was flat or round. Whether things in the southern hemisphere were upside down and so on. This might be part of an attempt to create a document that appears to come from an exotic and unknown culture and location. If so, then the VMs is a hoax. It may not have been verifiable at the time, but the land of inverted violets is not real. It is imaginary. And as a text purporting to originate in an imaginary location, the VMs is a hoax.
Is the VMs a modern forgery? I think of a forgery as a copy or imitation of something, like a work of art, that is similar enough in its replication, that it can pass as authentic. The intent of imitation is to enhance similarity and to avoid what is different, unexpected and exotic, to make something that is indistinguishable from the genuine. The difference in the inverted violets may be subtle and easily overlooked. The difference in the VMs Zodiac is plainly blatant. How hard could it be to simply use the traditional zodiac sequence and structure, rather than Pisces first, Aries and Taurus split, etc., etc? This is not forgery by imitation.
|
|
|
|
| A possible source for the "modern italian copy" |
|
Posted by: voynichbombe - 05-08-2017, 06:05 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (42)
|
 |
I can't find the thread atm which mentions one or two "copied pages" (sometimes assumed to be the one's Kircher received) aquired by an italian copyshop owner, who subsequently got them tested and dated contemporarily.
While watching the "Austrian Documentary" for the nth time (I always find something new that bugs me), I clearly saw a recording of someone doing a copy. Who knows what happened with the film props after production stop?
This is just a thought.. as said I'm out of time to locate the thread, see which folios appeared on that italian market, and compare them to the pages being copied in the video.
Anyways I couln't help a slight chuckle at Rene Zandbergen interviewing Richard Santa Coloma.
That documentary may have moved a lot, but sometimes "good intention" is the opposite of "good".
|
|
|
|
| Interesting Vwords - qokeedy |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 31-07-2017, 10:22 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (2)
|
|
On the lkeedy thread, MarcoP wrote this, so I thought I would start a follow-up thread on qokeedy
Quote:MarcoP:
Another observation is that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. qokeedy (a much more common word) correlates with both lkeedy and olkeedy: 69% of the pages that contain qokeedy also contain at least one of lkeedy / olkeedy
The two words sequence qokeedy.olkeedy occurs three times (79v, 112r, 112v).
olkeedy.qokeedy occurs twice (f82v, f113r)
lkeedy.qokeedy occurs once (f112v)
|
|
|
|
| Interesting Vwords - otccg |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 31-07-2017, 11:03 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (2)
|
|
If you've been reading the "Interesting Vwords" threads in order, you may have noticed that all the words so far completely skip over the zodiac-symbols section and most of them make only a short stop in the star pages.
So here is one that is different—quite significantly different...
oteey is a "cosmology" word, if we can use that term for vords that are frequently found in the sun/moon/star and zodiac-symbol pages. It's not exclusive to these sections (there are others that are), but it's predominantly found in these sections.
- oteey first appears on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on line 4, in between a mostly-plant vord and another mostly star-related vord.
- It then shows up in a few big-plant pages, mostly in company with plant and cosmo vords.
- It is on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (ven mus mel/del)
- It is then found in many of the sun/moon/star pages, sometimes two or three times on the page, sometimes even more than once on a line, sometimes twice in a row (f69v).
- It appears three times on Pisces, once on each Aries, three times on Taurus, twice on red Taurus, once on Gemini, twice on Cancer, once on Leo, not on Virgo, but some of the text is obscured, so it's hard to know, once on Libra, twice on Scorpio, and not on Sagittarius.
- It appears only once on a pool page.
- It's not found in the small-plant section.
- It appears only once on the starred-text pages, on folio 116r, at the end of the second paragraph and within the 6th and 9th paragraphs.
So, in contrast to the previously posted vords, this one occurs frequently on cosmo/zodiac pages.
It's interesting that it is on only one starred-text page, yet three times. Is it possible this folio is somehow related to celestial bodies?
|
|
|
|
| Interesting Vwords - chok |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 31-07-2017, 10:35 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- No Replies
|
|
chok might be a plant-section Vord, except there aren't enough instances to be sure.
- It first appears on the last line of f1r, between two other mostly-plant vords.
- It then appears on 3 big-plant folios—the first two times in the company of other plant vords, the third time oddly sandwiched within four general-purpose (common) vords.
- Then, like the previously posted vord, it shows up in a spoke of the "Pleiades" folio.
The latter point is something I noticed quite a long ago and it made me curious...
To people in the middle ages, everything was interconnected. The stars and planets governed parts of the body, the shape of a plant expressed what kind of illnesses it cured, the stars governed the qualities of the plants. Body/stars/medicine/shapes/influence... they simply weren't separable from one another.
It is assumed by many that star shapes in the VMS are always stars, but I'm not certain that is always so. It's possible, for example, that some of the little stars in the rosette pages are plants/bushes, rather than stars.
When I saw that quite a few primarily-plant vords turn up on star pages like the "Pleiades" page, I wondered, could these pages be something a little different? perhaps an aerial plan for a section of an herb garden for plants that are governed by a certain constellation? Planting guides, rather than pictures of the heavens? Zodiac-based gardens did exist.
Another possibility (I'm always trying to think of alternative interpretations) is that these specific plants have words in common with celestial bodies (there are many plants with words like Saturn, star, Venus, etc., as part of the plant name) and perhaps that is why they show up on both plant and star pages. But then one might expect them on the zodiac pages, as well, and that doesn't always happen.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: PlantFace.png]](http://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/PlantFace.png)