+- 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: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon (/thread-4487.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - ReneZ - 11-02-2025
It has also been said that: "statistics have not solved the Voynich MS so they are not useful".
Well then:
- art history has not solved the VMS, so it is not useful
- cryptanalysis has not solved the VMS, so it is not useful
- linguistics has not solved the VMS, so it is not useful
- archival research has not solved the VMS, so it is not useful
I could go on...
To end on a more positive note, each of these (and other) areas has added something to our understanding.
I dare say that the contribution from the area of statistics is among the larger ones.
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - tavie - 11-02-2025
You've not published your full system but there's at least some info here so I've now included it on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You are the 55th theory recorded on the Ninja site (many others are on other sites), and the 3rd Czech theory on the list (as others have mentioned, Josef Zlatoděj has a Czech/Jewish substitution theory elsewhere).
If you read any of them, ask yourself "Why is my solution better than any of those on the list? Why is it different?"
All the solutions on that list contain different systems, spread out across at least 25 different languages. But they're also all the same. This is because they:
- fail to produce text that could be reproduced by anyone else (too many choices for a glyph)
- fail to produce text that seems to have coherent syntax in the target language
- fail to explain the strange, unlanguage-like behaviour of Voynichese
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - BessAgritianin - 11-02-2025
(11-02-2025, 12:35 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."Why is my solution better than any of those on the list? Why is it different?"
All the solutions on that list contain different systems, spread out across at least 25 different languages. But they're also all the same. This is because they:
- fail to produce text that could be reproduced by anyone else (too many choices for a glyph)
- fail to produce text that seems to have coherent syntax in the target language
- fail to explain the strange, unlanguage-like behaviour of Voynichese
My solution is the truth.
Using the same symbols I have translations of 116v; plants part too (which I will publish in my blog later). I have a translation of f1r- of which no other has a reasonable one yet.
Concerning to the first point- (too many choices for a glyph) This point should be removed from your standards of validation.
Because this is the heart of the coding of the Manuscript. Some symbols are with more possibilities. As "8" - may be "v" and maybe "b"; "r" may be "r", but maybe "n". "P" too, etc.
Here is fair to mention that it maybe not a target of the coding, but a way be that someone has copied unknown for this scriber symbols. I am not certain if this is not a writing skill failure.
What coherency you expect in a chart with names of the stars? There is provided a parallel with other tables of Picatrix, Star Names, Arabic Magic etc.
Voynecese is a very language-like language and this point is fantasy to be provided for a criteria.
Thank you for including me in your solutions list!
It is better to be registered there, than ignored.
Note- there are words in the manuscript from 4 Languages. It is not only Czech Moravian. Star names are Arabic. Some of the medical terms are German and there is a forth language too.
br: Vessy
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - BessAgritianin - 11-02-2025
(11-02-2025, 12:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It has also been said that: "statistics have not solved the Voynich MS so they are not useful".I believe that statistics can be super useful tool too. It is the men behind it unconscientiously, who make it sometimes fail.
To end on a more positive note, each of these (and other) areas has added something to our understanding.
I dare say that the contribution from the area of statistics is among the larger ones.
br: Vessy
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - Koen G - 11-02-2025
(11-02-2025, 05:21 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My solution is the truth.
That's not how science works. If your theory fails to convince anyone, then the problem is your theory.
I understand that you genuinely believe that you are on the right track. But what tavie is trying to demonstrate is that you're the next one in a long line of people who equally thought that their theory was correct. To us, neutral observers, there is nothing that differentiates your theory from theirs. It's a system with way too much freedom that ignores Voynichese and linguistic reality in favor of a contrived fantasy.
I'm not saying that you or any of those many, many other people lack intelligence though. The manuscript itself has the ability to bring about these false positives, and reinforce our idea that we are on the right track. Once you select a language and come up with a rudimentary system, you will be able to make it work. Any language will do.
Of course it doesn't actually work. That's where all the usual strategies come in.
* just pick a few words here and there that happen to work
* mix languages
* blame the manuscript when a nonsense translation comes out ("It's poetic language! The author had a strange style! It's a lost dialect!")
* ignore the grammar of the target language and go with whatever dictionary form works best
* assign multiple glyphs to multiple sounds in a way that gives too much freedom
* need to "interpret" the result before anyone can actually understand it
....
Not all of those are found in all theories, but they are all (subconscious) strategies that allow the translator to keep going with their system. Like that, they keep generating positive feedback, and through this experience become convinced that their theory actually works. That's how we end up in a situation like this: we say "it cannot work for these reasons", but you say "whatever, my theory is the truth". This is because this hyperflexible system you came up with has confirmed for you many times that your theory is correct. And it has happened for a hundred or more other people before you, and it will keep happening to others.
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon- Second Part - BessAgritianin - 19-02-2025
There is a second part to the Stations of the moon.
The innermost ring in f67r1 contains the start, middle and end stars names, identified in each station.
So there is nothing about health, or charms, as I have expected, but further star names... The man is scientific!
Here is the link for those who might be interested:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - tavie - 19-02-2025
Did anything Koen said above give you pause for thought?
We have pointed out these problems to your predecessors, and they ignored us and declared they were right. We have pointed out to them that their own predecessors said the same thing. And yet they insist that they are right, and all the others are wrong.
Now we point out how your solution suffers from the same problems as your predecessors. And like them you respond by insisting you are right.
Reading all this, do you never feel even a flicker of a doubt about your solution? That you have fallen into the same trap that all the solvers before you fell into, and that many after you will also fall into?
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - Ruby Novacna - 19-02-2025
Bess, I notice that you have started to group your writings on the same blog, this is a good thing.
The presentation of your last post is clearly improved: more sober, clearer, with some references, still vague and incomplete, but still the references.
What is missing from your posts, in my opinion, is the possibility of comparing your reading with other proposals. You could use for this a known transcription, like EVA, for example, available on the site of Rene voynich.nu.
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - ReneZ - 20-02-2025
(19-02-2025, 01:47 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Reading all this, do you never feel even a flicker of a doubt about your solution?
I am afraid that you may be preaching to the choir benches...
(19-02-2025, 03:51 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You could use for this a known transcription, like EVA, for example, available on the site of Rene voynich.nu.
She has said (if I remember correctly) that all transcriptions are wrong...
RE: Foil Q9f67r1- Stations of the Moon - Ruby Novacna - 20-02-2025
(20-02-2025, 12:22 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.She has said (if I remember correctly) that all transcriptions are wrong...
In this specific case, the greatest value of a transcription is not whether it is true or wrong, but whether it is available. But, of course, one must be willing to exchange and collaborate.