+- 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: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? (/thread-758.html)
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - farmerjohn - 12-01-2018
(12-01-2018, 06:02 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-01-2018, 10:12 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Every word is correct Latin word (=acceptable by Whitaker's Words) with precision to declension, conjugation, etc. This is checked mechanically.
...
Many of the words in Whitaker's Words were not used in the Middle Ages or were extremely rare. Nor can most of these words be found in the tens of thousands of Latin books from late-15th, 16th, 17th centuries that have been digitized and are available online.
You took these words:
A. Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorus
to complete | explain/uncover/open | to jest | open/revealed | produce/beget | purtrid fluid, || ship-hand/bargeman | equally/ to the same degree | execorularum?? | bimanorus??
And translated them into this:
B. Finished with playful beginning open part of the drawing, trunk divided equally, painted in two colors
Even if all the words in Whitaker's Words were used in the Middle Ages, which isn't the case, I can't figure out how how you got from A to B. Some of them don't match their meanings and others are questionable. For example, it's a bit of a leap to interpret "bimanorus" as painted in two colors. Yes, bi is two and mano is to flow, but it could just as easily be a river flowing in two directions or something else.
It's also not entirely clear how you got from this:
Patrationellurum paraboli cupitorura copium (?) comanus
To this:
Want to (?) leaves of finished drawings
It's not just the individual words that are strange and unusual, the way they are combined is not at all typical of any Latin I have seen.
Whitaker has assigned every word a attribute, which tells an age when word was used. I try to use it as much as possible.
Now to the first phrase (second one was analyzed in one of previous posts).
Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorus
patr.āt.um - originally supine of patrō, there is used in sense "have finished", the interpretation is pretty reliable, at least 100%
aper.i.um - noun from verb "to open, to begin"
joc.iōn.um - noun from "to joke", here used as an adjective
apert.um - noun "beginning", here as verb "began"
part.us - this word has also reliable traslation - "part". But it can also be apertus "began", in this case previous word must be noun and the whole sentence should be restructured. It's a good alternative.
tabell.ī - from tabellae, noun "small picture"
caudic.āri.ūrus - from caudex, "trunk of a tree". A wouldn't trust this interpretation too much, but there is another place where this translation looks plausible
aequ.e - adverb "equally"
execōr.ul.ārum - from execō "cut", unreliable, doesn't meet some criteria and should be noun (diminutive suffix) used as an adjective, but I just couldn't find better interpretation.
biman.ōr.us - from manō, "pour", verb.
And you are correct about "a bit of a leap". That's a fight for every word.
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - -JKP- - 12-01-2018
Well, you mostly repeated the same definitions I mentioned upthread, but you didn't explain how you got from those words to the translations, which was really what I was more interested in.
farmerjohn wrote: "caudic.āri.ūrus - from caudex, "trunk of a tree". A wouldn't trust this interpretation too much, but there is another place where this translation looks plausible'
Actually, this one has a rational origin. Tree trunks were used to make boats, originally canoes. Similarly derived words later were applied to merchant ships, barges, and the bargemen who worked on them.
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - farmerjohn - 12-01-2018
(12-01-2018, 10:41 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, you mostly repeated the same definitions I mentioned upthread, but you didn't explain how you got from those words to the translations, which was really what I was more interested in.
farmerjohn wrote: "caudic.āri.ūrus - from caudex, "trunk of a tree". A wouldn't trust this interpretation too much, but there is another place where this translation looks plausible'
Actually, this one has a rational origin. Tree trunks were used to make boats, originally canoes. Similarly derived words later were applied to merchant ships, barges, and the bargemen who worked on them.
JKP, I mean that caudic.āri.ūrus="trunk of a tree", not only caudex
As for translation, I try to determine for each word which part of a speech it is, then use the fact that verb and adjective usually go after noun (definitely except for beginning of sentence which should start with gallow)
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - -JKP- - 13-01-2018
If it is vowelless, how do you know it is Latin? Couldn't it be one of the other Romance languages? They have a similar structure if you take out the vowels.
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - farmerjohn - 14-01-2018
It maps to Latin very well, has such properties as a lot of diminutives, interchangeability of e and i, o and u, voiceless h... I'm satisfied
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - -JKP- - 14-01-2018
I don't claim to be strong at Latin, but I have been reading medieval Latin texts for a few years and this doesn't look like anything that I've seen from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Czech, etc.
I would really like to hear Helmut Winkler's opinion on your translations.
In your translation, the words, their combination, the distribution... are all highly unusual. The common words found in almost every sentence in almost every medieval Latin text are completely missing. The joining words are missing. There are a lot of uncharacteristically long words joined together. The grammar is stilted and feels contrived.
I am also having trouble seeing the logic for some of the translations. It's as though you have intentionally created meaning. As I mentioned, why would you assume that bidirectional flow is referring to two colors of paint when it could just as easily (perhaps more easily) be translated as two branches of flowing liquid, as in a stream, for example? This strikes me as a very subjective choice.
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - Searcher - 14-01-2018
farmerjohn wrote:
Quote:Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorusPatratum, apertum, partus, tabelli, aeque are real words in Latin and in some its variations.
The rest, although contain correct / existed roots, have incorrect word structure, which are hardly could exist.
The word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is a real word, but how you can explain the suffix -urus (-ura) in the word caudicariura? If you mean that the root is caudex (caudic-), and the suffixes are -ari-, -ura, there must be general rules of that language, recorded in some existed source, for that last morpheme. For example, for the mentioned word, I could find only one rational explanation, if it would be caudicariorum (plural genitive of caudicarius).
The same with the word execorularum. If it is a noun in genitive plural, which may be translated as an adjective (meaning the ends -arum and -orum of Latin), then the basical form of the word (noun) is execorula (non existed). For example, epistola or epistula - in genitive plural: epistolarum, epistularum, (meaning of messages). As well, there are no word bimanorus or, even, manorus, if it is not Toba-Batak, but manorum and bimanorum exist as (again) the plural genitive form of the words: manus and bimanus. Bimanus, in this case, means bimanous (meaning a human).
There is no conjunction or preposition in the sentence. Generally, the grammar structure of the sentence is wrong.
I think, you need to know.
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - farmerjohn - 14-01-2018
JKP, escuse me, this is going to be a bit personal but still.
I'm complete zero in Latin, even after rewriting Whitaker's Words and working with it for more than a year. When I started working with VMS and understood that this is Latin I bought several Latin textbooks. But mapping Voynechese to Latin wasn't going very well. Words mapped well, structure didn't. I understood very soon that "some interesting form of Latin" is the only way out. So there was a choice: wrong theory with classical language or correct but unprovable in practice theory with some fantastic language. Or in other words to quit or become object of mockery.
The choice was heavy, but more importantly the objective of research somewhat changed. Now it's not "to map" to language, but "to find" language. My textbooks became almost useless, with only basic facts and tables of endings needed. Everything else can do more harm. Sort of "tunnel vision".
So matching my "translations" to Latin today is funny but useless. I have had few replies on them and all negatives. Matching properties of VMS language to properties of Latin, especially spoken, is more promising direction IMHO which I'm certainly not capable of...
Now today the primary task is to find reliable word translations. The translation is more or less reliable if can be applied in several places. There these strange small phrases are pretty handy and they also give insights on grammar. In my last pdf I tried to keep only phrases where all or at least most of words were reliable.
I'm not sure about EVA-octhy at all, it comes from my current interpretation of EVA-cthy ("to flow [colors]") which is applicable in several places and separately standing EVA-o. To be honest there are significantly more interesting words in VMS.
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - farmerjohn - 14-01-2018
(14-01-2018, 08:19 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.farmerjohn wrote:
Quote:Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorusPatratum, apertum, partus, tabelli, aeque are real words in Latin and in some its variations.
The rest, although contain correct / existed roots, have incorrect word structure, which are hardly could exist.
The word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is a real word, but how you can explain the suffix -urus (-ura) in the word caudicariura? If you mean that the root is caudex (caudic-), and the suffixes are -ari-, -ura, there must be general rules of that language, recorded in some existed source, for that last morpheme. For example, for the mentioned word, I could find only one rational explanation, if it would be caudicariorum (plural genitive of caudicarius).
The same with the word execorularum. If it is a noun in genitive plural, which may be translated as an adjective (meaning the ends -arum and -orum of Latin), then the basical form of the word (noun) is execorula (non existed). For example, epistola or epistula - in genitive plural: epistolarum, epistularum, (meaning of messages). As well, there are no word bimanorus or, even, manorus, if it is not Toba-Batak, but manorum and bimanorum exist as (again) the plural genitive form of the words: manus and bimanus. Bimanus, in this case, means bimanous (meaning a human).
There is no conjunction or preposition in the sentence. Generally, the grammar structure of the sentence is wrong.
I think, you need to know.
Searcher, thanks for greate and very precise questions!
The meaning of word caudicariurus match meaning from another piece (I'm not sure of correctness of both, of course).
The structure in my understanding is the following. Basic word is caudec-. Then suffix ari is appended with no significant value. I think it was used sometimes to mimic some other language or to keep poetry meter. Suffix ur for this particular word is unexplainable for me. -ness? Trunkness??? The only reason can be that without ur it would be EVA-qokchy, which match some other word.
Now words bimanorus and execorus. These are got from verb plus suffix -or ("result of the verb" by WW). I believe that VMS language is simplified so, that all declensions have ending -us in Nominative (or -is, but this is not crucial, both are covered by EVA-y). The result however continues to function as verb. But. If it functions as verb why to add diminutive suffix to it? That's why I thing bimanorus is probable translation, but execorularum is very weak...
I cannot find proper translation for execorularum, but in my interpretation it's GEN-ACC (I think these cases are merged) plural and should function as adjective (there are two more similar samples in my pdf I think).
Finally I don't think there is ending -orum for nouns (replaced with -arum). Reason - problematically distinguish noun which ends -orum from noun produced from verb with suffix -or and ended with -um.
PS Yes, I think conjunctions were rare in VMS
RE: Can VM be written in vowelless Latin? - Helmut Winkler - 15-01-2018
(14-01-2018, 07:50 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would really like to hear Helmut Winkler's opinion on your translations.
Thanks, JKP. Of course, it is not true Latin, not even medieval or bad Latin, it is something that partly sounds like Latin. I have given up commenting on the could-be Latin theories. The musa quote in the banana thread Rene has given is proper Latin of the time.
The real joke of the story is that Beinecke 408 probably IS a Latin text, but these brute force - methods with word lists or the statitstics approach of the cryptographers obviously don't work, there must be is another trick behind it all.
I