+- 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: Extended EVA &163 (/thread-475.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Extended EVA &163 - Koen G - 18-03-2016
I find it so weird that people can defend abolishing assumptions - rightfully so! - and then, in the same paragraph, demand that others accept the oldest and most mistaken assumption of them all: that all medieval manuscripts were original works, and that no older texts were copied or translated.
Imagine looking at a painting made in 1855. The painting depicts the roman Colosseum. Does that mean we have to analyse the architectural properties of the depicted building through a 1855 lens?
RE: Extended EVA &163 - Anton - 18-03-2016
Quote:In my opinion, the fundamental mistake in dealing with Beinecke 408 is that most people don't take it at its face value. Some guys tell me it is a ciphre but are not able to solve it, which is ridiculous for a 15th c. ciphre or they give me lots of statistics about how some glyphs are behaving but can't tell me what their statistics mean or read or translate a single glyph, not to mention the Far East and New World theories. It's been this way since the ms. was rediscovered and if you have no results in a hundred years you should sit back and think again. Beinecke 408 is a 1st half 15th c. Latin European manuscript and should be treated as one, most likely it is a highly abbreviated text. If there is something that looks like a 15th c. abbreviation stroke it should be treated as such and one should try to find out if there is an abbreviation and what it means. It is the same with other things, e.g. the sign that looks like the etcetera abbreviation, the Arabic numerals and so on.
Hmm, calling a text "highly abbreviated" and not being able to read it is as "ridiculous" as it is to call it a 15th century cipher and not being able to read it, isn't it?
Actually, there is a very old concept, currently denoted as steganography (the term was introduced by Trithemius, if I'm not mistaken), which aims at presenting something to look not what it is, in order to obfuscate the useful message.
To return to the &163 symbol, it would be interesting to read any assumptions about what that character may exactly mean with regard to the object depicted to the right (and what is that object itself).
RE: Extended EVA &163 - -JKP- - 18-03-2016
Trithemius was apparently using the term steganography by at least the (1540s), as referenced by other authors like H.C. Agrippa (who I believe was one of his pupils).
But, Johannes G. Faust mentions the term, along with others like necromancy and prognostication, in 1505, so it's difficult to know whether Faust or Trithemius used it first (or whether both adapted it from an even earlier source.
Often terms like this begin as oral jargon and don't make it out of the small circle until someone puts it in print.
RE: Extended EVA &163 - Diane - 18-03-2016
Helmut,
Some assertions about the manuscript and its content remain no more than hypotheses formed first and later shored up by colllecting data likely to support it while eliminating or ignoring anything offering opposition. I find that approach poorly suited to a proper evaluation of an unprovenanced manuscript.
In other cases, the person may offer no hypothesis at all, but contribute valid observations which stand the test of time. Philip Neal's contributions have all been of this admirable type, and if I were to vote on who I think had made the most valuable contribution to advance of our knowledge of MS Beinecke 408, I'd vote for him. Objectivity, independence, balanced study, and relevant skills and/or qualifications.
Since I am one of the four people (with Stolfi, Wiart and Mazar) who after studying the manuscript in depth, concluded that its content reflected the eastern, rather than the western sphere, I won't comment more on that opinion, except to say that in no case was it hypothesis-first sort of stuff.
Whether the 'New World' matter is just a storyline, developed from thin air for which support was later sought, or a valid conclusion from broad comparative studies by people with appropriate abilities I don't know yet. I'm waiting to read the evidence for and against. I mean evidence, not just assertions or lobbying or anything of that sort.
Calling everything a 'theory' as Voynich studies tends to do has become a habit, and an unfortunate one, in my opinion because it tends to treat everything as a 'notion' or theory, from the silliest off the cuff idea to the most careful conclusions from preliminary in-depth study.
RE: Extended EVA &163 - Helmut Winkler - 19-03-2016
(18-03-2016, 12:12 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm, calling a text "highly abbreviated" and not being able to read it is as "ridiculous" as it is to call it a 15th century cipher and not being able to read it, isn't it?
Well, we had a medieval ciphre a few weeks ago on one of the blogs and it was solved in a very short time by someone who knew above all something about philology and history of astronomy. And I think the number of people having experience with difficult to read, highly abbreviated medieval mss. especially in the sciences seems to be limited.
RE: Extended EVA &163 - Sam G - 19-03-2016
(16-03-2016, 10:07 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is the "arc" symbol in the VMS represented as extended EVA &163. (There is also &140, I'm not sure what's the difference between the two, but it seems that &163 is the one I am referring to).
It is quite rare, but it is encountered, for example, three times in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the "index" column to the left.
This symbol is quite attractive for the analysis purposes in that it is clearly a single symbol, and not any combination/superposition of simpler symbols.
It looks like the "hook" that distinguishes <sh> from <ch>. Why it's used as a standalone character here is not clear, mainly since the purpose of the column of symbols is not clear (though it wouldn't surprise me if these symbols are serving as numbers in this case).
Quote:What makes this symbol extremely interesting is that it is used as a standalone label in f80r: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I'm not sure that's intended to be the same symbol. The one on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't look like it's making a greater than 180 degree arc like the <sh> hook usually does.
(18-03-2016, 12:12 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm, calling a text "highly abbreviated" and not being able to read it is as "ridiculous" as it is to call it a 15th century cipher and not being able to read it, isn't it?
I agree - these are both pretty ridiculous explanations for the VMS.
