(20-07-2026, 08:25 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On f17r, this letter [h?] is written in the same way. It's the same with the letter l.

Jorge_Stolfi dateline='[url=tel:1784575156' Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1784575156[/url]']
I don't think that the Author went to "China" just for that (although that was the theory of Georg Baresch, the first documented owner of the book).  I think that he was there for other reasons (like the Persian diplomat above, or the Venetian merchant who lived for years in Burma buying gemstones for the European market), but was impressed by the Chinese medical books and decided to bring some back.

Quote:But buying a printed copy or copying the Chinese characters would be pointless, since he would not have been able to read anything.  To get a translation he would need a local doctor who spoke Latin or his language, which would be practically impossible.  The proposed scenario is that he asked a local doctor to read the book aloud in the local language while he wrote it down.   If he lived there for a few years, he should have been able to understand at least the common words, but surely he could not recognize the medical terms and plant names. Thus translating what the (doctor) was reading would be impossible.  The only viable option would be to write what he was saying in a phonetic notation.  Then he could at least read aloud his notes when he god back home.

Quote:Handwriting analysis of the marginalia suggests [that they are contemporaneous with the scribing of the VMS], the closest handwriting matches of the marginalia found all date between 1400 and 1425. Source: 32 Minutes into You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:I knew that video.  Koen and Marco did a very good and massive work, and I think it will help a lot with tracking the history of the manuscript and identifying the autor of the marginalia.

However, their conclusion about the dates is not convincing, because it is based on a wrong assumption.  They assumed that the text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was a meaningful message written by someone in his native language, with contemporaneous letter style and his own normal handwriting.

But it is almost certain that the text on that page was a three-line parag(raph) entirely in Voynichese, which got erased almost entirely by a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the wiping thereof.  
[/quote)
This is most definitely a possibility, and I can see how people would believe this, again, I can see this as possible, but not probable.

[quote]
What was left was only the two Voynichese words aror sheey at the lower left corner, that must have been spared by the spill, and a fey faint bits of glyphs here and there.

Quote:So what we see now on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the pathetic attempt at restoring the lost text by the clod who wiped off the spill or by the owner.  This Restorer of 116v carefully and faithfully retraced the aror sheey.  But for the rest, he struggled to expand the faint surviving smudges.  Apparently he did not even know the Voynichese alphabet, so his guesses were mostly Latin letters.

At some point he may have seen what looked like the remains of a cross, maybe from a q or a gallows, and guessed that the lost text must have been a Christian charm, as is sometimes found in such a place on other manuscripts; and thus he "restored" any smudge that could be a cross as a cross too.

The evidence supporting this claim includes the "ketchup" stain on f103r, that proves that the text ink is not waterproof at all.  If the current "michiton" text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was original, it should have been at least blurred by the spill.  From its sharpness we must conclude that it was written after the spill. But then we must conclude also that whatever text was there before the spill, Voynichese or not, was almost completely erased by it.

Other evidence in support of this view is the fact that the second line of that parag ends before the margin, that the same letter appears in several very different and distorted shapes, that some "letters" are unrecognizable (like the "o" with "bowtie" of "multod") while look more like Voynichese glyphs than Latin letters (like "ct" that look just like Ch, or "ch" that look like platform gallows, and a "po" that may have been a qo), and fact that most of the words do not make sense in any language.

But then one cannot assume that the shapes of those "Latin" letters are representative of the Restorer's normal handwriting.  If the restoration happened in the 1500s or later, the owner must have known that the manuscript was at least 100 years old.  If he had any sense, he would not try to restore the smudges with letter shapes that were fashionable in his own time; he would look for what he thought could be 100-year-old shapes.

This claim also implies that the identification of the letters, as used in Koen and Marco's analyses, may be incorrect.  When the Restorer wrote  first "d" of "oladabad", he may not have been trying to write a "d", but only to restore what was left of a d.  Maybe he himself was not sure whether it would have been a "d" or an "s".  And the "long s" is "gas" was assumed to be an "s" rather than an "f" only because "gas" could be a Germanish word, whereas "gafmich" could not be -- but maybe the Restorer did intend it to be an "f".

Thus, while the analysis of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. letter shapes may provide useful information, the conclusion about the dates is not as significant as it is stated.  personally, I still believe that the marginalia are much later than the rest of the text: at least late enough for the Author of the book be no longer available.

(20-07-2026, 09:29 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By this logic, cfh or ckh is more appropriate. I don't think the left curl of t is intentionally erased.

(20-07-2026, 10:17 PM)J_Voy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't believe the author of the manuscript would be able to read and write in Chinese characters, this explanation does help, but why not use his native script to transcribe the sounds?

Quote:Why does the Voynich Manuscript visually match European herbals?

Quote:[f116v wiped-off theory] is most definitely a possibility, and I can see how people would believe this, again, I can see this as possible, but not probable.

Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do believe that the Author could not read Chinese characters.  Otherwise he would have bought a printed copy of the Zhenghe Bencao.  Which would be maybe 10x or 20x longer than the Shennong Bencao, with hundreds of additional remedies and lots of additional information about the SBJ ones, compiled from several other medical books published between 300 BCE and 1000 CE.

Quote:He did not use Latin script to encode the sounds for the same reason that people who routinely took dictation, like court clerks and secretaries, did not.  Namely, writing down any language with Latin letters, phonetically or not, is way too slow.  Hence the existence of many You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. systems that use letter shapes designed specifically for writing speed.  

Quote:It also visually matches some You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Quote:What exactly do you think is improbable in that scenario?

(20-07-2026, 08:19 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But buying a printed copy or copying the Chinese characters would be pointless, since he would not have been able to read anything.  To get a translation he would need a local doctor who spoke Latin or his language, which would be practically impossible. 

(21-07-2026, 12:26 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But he knew and understood the spoken language, by definition. Why did he not make and write down a translation himself? I bet it's much easier than devise an ex-novo tonal phonetic notation. And more useful too.

(21-07-2026, 02:31 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(21-07-2026, 12:26 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But he knew and understood the spoken language, by definition. Why did he not make and write down a translation himself? I bet it's much easier than devise an ex-novo tonal phonetic notation. And more useful too.

Knowing how the words are pronounced could have also had a lot of value. It would have been helpful for future expeditions or future travellers planning on communicating with people from that area, for one. 

There's also the possibility that the author also did exactly that (produced a plaintext translated version), but that it was lost or destroyed. Of course, we'll never know.

ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The nymphs and the goat on the left do not seem to fit with the author's style (especially when compared to the nymphs from balneology). You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can be either an attempt to reconstruct the text or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I don't really believe that this is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., because in the end, it feels like stretching an owl on a globe.