+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Marginalia (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: 116v (/thread-437.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
RE: 116v - Jorge_Stolfi - 06-08-2026
(06-08-2026, 12:53 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another fun OCR mistake I've noticed is "Marix" when it is "Mariæ" and I've been wondering if there is a connection..
Yes, that may explain the "ix"es on f116v!
Namely, the Repairman who tried to recover the lost text did not enough Latin to know that "æ" was not "x". So he put four "ix"es in what he guessed that was a Latin charm.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 06-08-2026
@ Stolfi
I see it differently: the downward stroke below the “r” isn't a stroke that was actually written; it's offset and similar to the stroke next to it (red arrows). Plus, it's slightly separated. That means it's not part of the letter.
Otherwise, the writer would have had to pause briefly and then continue writing slightly offset.
It’s an “r” because the writer writes the “r” with a dot next to the stroke, and that dot is still visible here right next to the “i” (blue arrow). So it’s an “r,” just like the last letter of the word. Therefore, it’s not a “p.”
Putrifer is the most plausible explanation in this regard. (And a very old one at that—I don’t know who came up with it, otherwise I would cite them.)
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 06-08-2026
(06-08-2026, 12:53 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another fun OCR mistake I've noticed is "Marix" when it is "Mariæ" and I've been wondering if there is a connection.. Maybe some people just did an "x" shape as it was quicker, or maybe its "pre-mincing" inspiration.. I don't know.
Then (Latin) *moriae* = folly (genitive) would mean foolishness, naivety
an interesting approach
Mary's folly?
RE: 116v - Bluetoes101 - 06-08-2026
(06-08-2026, 04:49 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Then (Latin) *moriae* = folly (genitive) would mean foolishness, naivety
an interesting approach
Mary's folly?
It can't be a coincidence!!
..on a more serious note, I did find "pbren" being used also. In 19th century German books you see "pbdn" in like "863 in 4 pbdn" which I believe was an abbreviation for something like "volumes" or "parts" in relation to books. I guess lord of the rings would be "X(pages) in 3 pbdn". I'm half guessing here so I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong.
Anyway, I found that this was sometimes "pbren". Of the (very small set of) examples I saw, the 3 that were "pbren" were all from Bavaria. AI chatbot thinks its a dialect thing, I have no clue and I'm done believing them
so, hopefully someone here knows more. But yeah, its way too late an example.... but, it is a use of "pbren" that's real. Gotta take the small wins with the VMS..
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 06-08-2026
@ Bluetoes
The “pbren” in your example is “uber” "ein" = "über ein"; there's no “p” in it.
Translated: “over a”
The entire paragraph:
Als solts jm nit geschehen/
Vber ein klein weil ist er nit da/
Vnd würdst jn nimmer sehen.
So: As if it shouldn’t happen to him;
After (over) a short while, he’s gone,
And you’ll never see him again.
RE: 116v - Bluetoes101 - 06-08-2026
That was my "this is actually "u"" example ^
Some "Pbren" that I was talking about in the last post (19C).
1858
1862
1861
RE: 116v - JoJo_Jost - 06-08-2026
@ Bluetoes
That ist Pbden ("d" not "r" look at the other "r" and the other "d") - I think it's the short form of "Pappbänden" (paperback covers) but im not sure.
RE: 116v - Jorge_Stolfi - 06-08-2026
(06-08-2026, 08:21 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Some "Pbren" that I was talking about in the last post (19C).
But those "Bbten." are abbreviations for "Brebigten" = "Sermons". No?
All the best, --stolfi
RE: 116v - Jorge_Stolfi - 06-08-2026
(06-08-2026, 04:38 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see it differently: the downward stroke below the “r” isn't a stroke that was actually written; it's offset and similar to the stroke next to it (red arrows). Plus, it's slightly separated. That means it's not part of the letter.
That is harder to accept when looking at the color scans:
The continuation of the stem of the second "p" could be noise. But it could still be real part of the letter.
The "Big Wipe" theory for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. claims that there are three layers of text on it:
- Rt0 - the original Voynichese text, all gone except the aror Sheey and maybe a few wisps here and there.
- RpA - the "Repairman"'s attempt to recover the lost text, but assuiming it was Latin script.
- Rt1 (or RtB) - the global restoration pass that retraced most of the text in many of the pages.
The stems of the "p"s in "poxleber", "pinen", "potpfer", "portad", "paldcn", and "pbrey" could be RpA or Rt0. It seems that Rt1 viewed those "p"s as "u"s or "v"s. and thus did not retrace the descenders. And he also viewed the "o" after the first "p" as "u" too. But the Repairman RpA very likely meant "p"s and "o".
One could parse the first 2/3 of the second "p" in "potpfer" as an "r", ignoring the descender. But then the remainder of that "p" would be an anomalous "i": bent, tilted to the right, shorter than "n"-height, and almost continuous with the dot of the "r".
Quote:Putrifer is the most plausible explanation in this regard.
IF one is determined to read it as a Germanisch or Latinorum word. And maybe that is indeed what the German-speaking Repairman thought the word was.
But the sentence "poxleber pinen putrifer" would still not make sense. "Putrifer" ("rot-bringer" or "rot-bearer") seems to be a Latin neologism coined for the World of Warcraft game. Is there ANY occurrence in a medieval manuscript, other than the VMS?
Trying to make sense of the text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is like trying to find meaning in words typed by a monkey...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: 116v - Aga Tentakulus - 06-08-2026
I’ve found it.
The first one.
Rheinisches, third original edition, published in Cologne, Volume 834-37 Suppl (Supplement) 1 (Addendum) in 26 Bbren. (Variants) (book with colourful label).
‘bren.’ in older books, library catalogues or lists usually stands for ‘colour-labelled’ (or, less commonly, ‘brown’ in reference to cover colours), but is rarely used in everyday language when citing works. If you are referring to a specific abbreviation or context (such as a biblical book or a place of publication)
Ih habs gefunden.
Das erste.
Rheinisches, dritte Original Auflage, in Köln Band 834-37 Suppl (Supplement) 1 (Ergänzung) in 26 Bbren. (Varianten) (Buch buntretikettiert).
bren. in älteren Büchern, Bibliothekskatalogen oder Verzeichnissen steht meist für buntretikettiert (oder seltener braun bei Einbandfarben), wird im normalen Sprachgebrauch beim Zitieren jedoch kaum verwendet. Falls Sie ein bestimmtes Kürzel oder einen Kontext (wie ein biblisches Buch oder einen Verlagsort)