+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Relation between text study and imagery study (/thread-1368.html)
Pages:
1
2
Relation between text study and imagery study - Koen G - 29-12-2016
This is a bit of a philosophical question: what comes first, the imagery or the text? Should we try to understand the images better first, or try to crack the text first? Which one will offer the easiest entrance? Which one will help us understand the other better?
There are some arguments that can shoot this thread down, so I would like to get them out of the way already. Let's hypothesize that:
- the text does contain some meaning (not necessarily plain text)
- the text and the images do belong together
- the document is genuine
---
When I started studying the manuscript - after having read some introductory material - I first focused on the text. With some naive enthusiasm, which you probably recognize. I soon realized that there were just too many unknowns to have a go at it without any foothold, so I gradually shifted my attention to the imagery. I am now growing more convinced that a profound understanding of the imagery is required before we can figure out the text. Studying the images can teach us:
- Which cultural background(s) are present, and hence which languages we may expect
- When the imagery originated and when it was altered, and hence, again, which languages we may expect
- Which subject matter we might look for in the text - specifically in the case of labels.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - stellar - 29-12-2016
I feel that the labels and the text should be the starting place which also include images. This is perhaps the easiest approach.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - -JKP- - 29-12-2016
(29-12-2016, 09:37 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
When I started studying the manuscript - after having read some introductory material - I first focused on the text. ...
I did this, as well, except that I skipped most of the introductory material. I had stumbled over Edith Sherwood's site when doing a Web search for something related to Leonardo da Vinci, and then, after glancing over her ideas about da Vinci and a few of the plants, I watched one of the videos on youtube. After that, I looked specifically at the text and then, after a while, realized it wasn't as easy to decode as it might seem at first glance. That led me to the plants, in the hope that they would reveal something about the text... and then the rest.
This is a bit of a philosophical question: what comes first, the imagery or the text? Should we try to understand the images better first, or try to crack the text first? Which one will offer the easiest entrance? Which one will help us understand the other better?
I think this can be summarized as imagery, text, physical attributes, and metadata, with the metadata being secondary ideas and conclusions that are extrapolated by studying the physical and visual aspects of the manuscript.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - Sam G - 30-12-2016
Well, if you think the text is a ciphertext, or that it is written in a known language, then in theory it should be possible to read the text without making use of the illustrations at all by simply identifying the cipher mechanism or language which has been used to produce the text.
Since I think the text is written in some otherwise unknown language in an unencrypted form, I think the only way to understand the text is by making some kind of connection between it and the illustrations. We can't really know for sure if this is possible or not. It depends on the specifics. I tend to assume that the text is related to the illustrations, but we don't know how closely related it is in general.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - Diane - 30-12-2016
Koen,
I think, now, that the single most important questions a person can ask in connection with study of this manuscript are the same as they would be if they decided to voice their own opinion about any other ancient or medieval work:
viz: "What are my skills?" and "What are my limits?"
It is true that the manuscript has attracted a few persons (John Tiltman being one of the earliest) who had decided ability in treating ciphers, a naturally clear and objective vision when commenting on the imagery, and even more importantly the intellectual honesty to admit where he needed to ask for - and listen to - people who knew fair bit about areas where he was ignorant.
Otherwise, the study has continually suffered from a tendency to trivialise it - or at least to reduce the parameters of discussion to whatever a given person just happens to know or to be interested in reading a bit about.
Similarly, it affects what level and type of information a given person is able to absorb and evaluate, let alone the issue of personal inclination to accept.
Not everyone is able to offer valid and useful comment on either the images or the written text, despite a general belief among many that they can be 'expert' on everything - including palaeography, codicology, iconographic analysis, art history, comparative language studies, and ciphers.
I think then that the real problem is not so much whether one should begin from study of the written or the pictorial text, but which areas one should admit being unable - by absence of natural skill, formal training or years of experience in comparative studies - to say anything useful about.
That said, I must admit that I'm about to put up a post relating to the script.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - ThomasCoon - 30-12-2016
I've been studying the text almost exclusively because I'm a linguist and can best approach the VMS mystery through that opening. I definitely agree with Koen that knowing the VMS's culture (through its images) will help us narrow down language families.
Koen brings up an interesting point about labeled images. For whatever reason, the astronomical and bathing labels have remained frustratingly unbroken, even though it looks like they should be so easy. The "5 elements" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are one example. Usually with an unknown script, scholars attack labels first and that provides the key for the rest of the text (this is how Knorosov worked on Mayan). But the VMS once again is an exception to the rule
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - ThomasCoon - 30-12-2016
(30-12-2016, 12:02 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, if you think the text is a ciphertext, or that it is written in a known language, then in theory it should be possible to read the text without making use of the illustrations at all by simply identifying the cipher mechanism or language which has been used to produce the text.
Yes. I agree 100%. If the VMS had no images and was a ciphertext I dare to say we could still break it.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - Koen G - 30-12-2016
(30-12-2016, 12:02 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, if you think the text is a ciphertext, or that it is written in a known language, then in theory it should be possible to read the text without making use of the illustrations at all by simply identifying the cipher mechanism or language which has been used to produce the text.
Since I think the text is written in some otherwise unknown language in an unencrypted form, I think the only way to understand the text is by making some kind of connection between it and the illustrations. We can't really know for sure if this is possible or not. It depends on the specifics. I tend to assume that the text is related to the illustrations, but we don't know how closely related it is in general.
Yes, I agree. We don't know for sure yet how related they are, but I think most evidence points towards a close relationship. For example in q13 paragraphs often start next to a new element in the drawing, giving the impression that each section of the image has its own chunk of text.
The only other way to explain this is to assume malicious intent on the part of 'the author' but I don't buy into that.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - Anton - 30-12-2016
It's important to note that text can be studied in itself.
First of all, it can be studied simply from the point of view of information theory.
Second, it can be studied from the linguistic point of view.
If one is not sure whether there is a meaningful message behind the text, even that can be explored (e.g. like the way that Montemurro & Zanette did it).
Of course, imagery is supportive. Or, I should say, it may be supportive. As of now, the only really supportive image that I can think of was that of the supposed abomasum in f116v. The T-O maps should have been supportive, but they have failed to be, thus far. There are promising pieces of imagery, though. One is the "Voynich pipes" diagram. The plants of my "focal set" may help us - but they may not, as well.
RE: Relation between text study and imagery study - Koen G - 30-12-2016
(30-12-2016, 10:10 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's important to note that text can be studied in itself.
Yes, I definitely agree, I didn't make this clear enough in my post. Both text and imagery can and should be studied in isolation as well. My question is rather: can we really hope to "translate" the text without the support of at least a basic understanding of the imagery? Without exploiting image/label couples?