+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: The twin in cryptology (/thread-4056.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: The twin in cryptology - nablator - 03-09-2023
Sometimes the crossbar looks straight at 300 dpi but actually connects at the top. This is 600 dpi enlarged to 900 dpi, f72r2 :
RE: The twin in cryptology - Rafal - 04-09-2023
Well, you are definitely true that these subtle differences do exist.
Completely different thing is iif they matter
It's a handwriting. Two glyphs representing the same letter will never be the same.
Do you have something more? Some patterns or regularities that you observed?
RE: The twin in cryptology - Aga Tentakulus - 04-09-2023
There are a few more.
But many are so rare that they cause confusion rather than being helpful.
They look almost the same, but the one is too rare.
Maybe it is a number. So leave it out and don't think about it.
RE: The twin in cryptology - Ruby Novacna - 07-09-2023
They look almost the same, but the one is too rare. Maybe it is a number.
The number or a capital letter
RE: The twin in cryptology - Aga Tentakulus - 13-09-2023
I'm pretty sure today that one problem is that you can't see properly.
If you look at the scripture too long, everything becomes blurred and everything looks the same.
I think LisaFaginDavis has had the same experience. After 20 minutes it's already finished. You can't see the details any more.
Also in this example, small change, big effect.
When does a combination become an ending?
@LisaFaginDavis, is a good idea to include the line number. I spent most of my time trying to find the details again. That's why I do it that way now.
And then you have to be aware of the details.
If you don't know the small differences in today's writing, you simply can't read.
RE: The twin in cryptology - Aga Tentakulus - 18-03-2024
Meaning of individual symbols
In order to better understand the characteristics and possibilities of the connections, the two symbol rings (marked ) should also be taken into consideration.
The two rings mainly contain only individual glyphs.
This raises some questions, but can also explain some things.
This raises some questions, but can also explain some things.
As a first example, why are two of the most important glyphs that appear as text in the book not present in the rings?
Where others can be clearly seen.
Basis f57v
If you take the characters "a + c" and add a bow to them, you get two new characters that also appear in the text. These two characters also appear in other books of the time and mean "at + et".
Wikipedia states the following:
Two such uses are located in the Middle Ages: either the origin as a handwritten fusion (ligature) of the letters a and d of the Latin word ad (German: zu, an, bei) or as an abbreviation sign.
From this perspective, the @ sign "at" can also mean "ad".
Wikipedia states the following:
Two such uses are located in the Middle Ages: either the origin as a handwritten fusion (ligature) of the letters a and d of the Latin word ad (German: zu, an, bei) or as an abbreviation sign.
From this perspective, the @ sign "at" can also mean "ad".
It gets interesting when you look at different combinations. Let's take these three signs and take a closer look at them.
When does a single character become a combination and why do I see the characters 1 + 2 differently and not the same?
With variant 3 it is almost obvious. It usually occurs at the end of the word and sometimes it stands alone. Possible double function.
Let's take a look at a section of a ring with various symbols.
Pos.4 has already been discussed in another treatise (Gemini). It occurs as an attachment to various glyphs and makes some into a combination but does not occur alone.
Why can't I find pos. 5 in the text? If I were to combine this glyph with a bow, I would get variant 2 (combination) as in the picture above.
However, since I see Pos.1 in the ring as a whole character, and the bow is not in the centre but attached at the top, I can assume that these are two different glyphs. A single character and a combination.
Wouldn't another symbol that we don't actually find anywhere look like this with the combination?
If I now consider the differences between pos.2 and pos.3 to be true, why should I consider the difference between pos.1 and pos.2 to be false when some evidence suggests that it can be just as true as the other. Isn't deception at the forefront here again?
And finally, when does an "-us" become an "-ust"?
I actually wanted to wait until VM day. I just thought I'd bring something new.
I'll think of something new by VM day. I've got enough, I just have to write.
Now I can tidy up my desktop and make everything disappear into folders where I'm sure I won't find it again.
Bedeutung von einzelnen Zeichen en.pdf (Size: 206.86 KB / Downloads: 38)
Bedeutung von einzelnen Zeichen.pdf (Size: 159.63 KB / Downloads: 43)