+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: A and B plants (/thread-161.html)
Pages:
1
2
A and B plants - Oocephalus - 27-01-2016
It is well known that the Voynich herbal pages can be classified into two distinct groups based on the characteristics of the text, termed the Currier A and B languages. I know there is no sharp division but rather a continuum, but the herbal pages seem to group at both the two extremes of it rather than in the middle (see René Zandbergen's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on this). There also seems to be a correlation with the appearance of the handwriting.
However, I haven't found anyone mentioning consistent differences between the plant illustrations on A and B pages. So this is a paradox, where sections that appear to refer to the same subject have text with very different properties. The only explanation I've seen is that of Nick Pelling, who claims in his book that the B plants look much less naturalistic (which may be true, but is hard to quantify, and many A plants are not very naturalistic either), and suggests that they are actually hidden drawings of machines. However, this seems not very convincing, and I don't think it has been generally accepted.
I think I've found a feature that differs between A and B plants. Namely, in many plants, the stem is separated from the root by a horizontal line. This occurs in "grafted" plants, where the stem is placed on a much thicker root that appears to have been cut off (but not in all of them), but also in ones where the stem and the root have the same thickness. With one exception, this only appears in plants where the text is Currier A.
The following pages have "grafted" plants with such lines: f3v, f6r, f7r, f9r, f11r, f13r, f14r, f16r, f16v, f19v, f22v, f23r, f36r, f37v, f44v, f45r, f45v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (?), f54v, f57r, f90r2, f93v. With the exception of f54v, these are all Currier A. Not that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is quite exceptional anyway, as it is on a bifolio (autocorrect thinks I mean "buffalo") that includes both herbal and text-only pages, which I think is unique.
In the following pages, the plant does not look grafted, but the line is there: f5r, f5v, f7v, f8v, f13v, f27r, f28r, f30v, f32v, f38r, f38v, f47r, f47v, f65v, f87r, f87v, f90v1, f90v2. These are all Currier A.
In the following pages, the plants are "grafted", but there is no line separating the stem(s) from the root: f26r, f39r, f39v, f48r, f55r, f65r, f95r1, f95r2, f95v1. These are all Currier B.
There are of course non-grafted plants without such a line, which occur in both A and B.
So this doesn't resolve the paradox, Herbal-A and B pages still both depict plants, but there seems to be at least a difference between them. Has anyone else noticed this, or other differences? If so, I would be interested to know.
RE: A and B plants - -JKP- - 27-01-2016
That "grafting" (the divide between the top of the plant and the bottom) is a symbolic representation used in a number of contexts (outside the VMS).
Most often in older manuscripts, it means that the plant has a bole, a strong tough root-stem as you might find on a stiff shrub or small tree. Sometimes it means the plant can grow from cuttings—the cuttings can be planted and new growth will sprout. Sometimes it refers to the part of the plant that shows above the ground (or other substrate like mud or water) and the part that shows below.
Whether the changes in the text and the symbolic representation are linked is another matter, of course, but it helps to understand the possible symbolic intent of the way it's drawn in order to work out ideas about whether differences in the text are coincidence, or related to the content and the manner of representing the plant.
RE: A and B plants - ReneZ - 27-01-2016
I once tried to classify all herbal drawings as objectively as I could, into threee categories:
1) looks like this could possibly be a real plant
3) does not look like this could ever be a real plant
and
2) doubtful / in between.
Very subjective, of course, and if I did it again, I would most probably end up with a different result.
However, if there were a clear trend, it should come out.
My counts were: (1 - 2 - 3)
For A language pages:
44 - 49 - 4
For B language pages:
13 - 19 - 5
In summary, I failed to see any systematic difference according to this test, but I wouldn't consider the 'case closed'.
RE: A and B plants - david - 27-01-2016
I had a very different approach once, which I abandoned because of time but I think still holds promise.
This is off the top of my head, trying to remember the original scheme.
I noticed that the forms of the plants seem to indicate what sort of plant they were.
We had four categories
- Trees (long straight stem between top and roots)
- Shrubs (short stem to roots, quite often the leaves have lots of little branches)
- Root crops (leaves straight out of roots)
- Creeping plants (usually indicated by several stems from leaves to roots)
Why was this useful to know?
Well, first off it indiciates the plants are based on some sort of taxonomy and not being drawn to whim.
It also indicates that the plants are being based on real life plants.
And it would also help narrow possible identifications if anyone wanted to know the modern name of the plant.
I have a half written draft paper (ah-hem: read blog post
) floating around in cyber-space, I really should go off and finish it.....
RE: A and B plants - Oocephalus - 27-01-2016
JKP: Thanks for the information! Yes, the divide between stem and root could have several different explanations. Not sure why it would correlate with different linguistic features in the text, but apparently it does.
Rene: Interesting! So it doesn't appear that the B plants are indeed less naturalistic than the A plants. So I suppose it's unlikely that they represent something fundamentally different.
David: It would certainly be interesting if any significant difference between the numbers of A and B plants in these categories could be found.
Something else I think I've noticed is that long, thin, pointed roots as e.g. in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. mostly seem to occur in B plants. However, I haven't tried to count this.
RE: A and B plants - Anton - 27-01-2016
If any systematic difference between "A" and "B" plants can be detected, this would be very interesting. This would strongly suggest some kind of separation of tasks, like:
one guy described the first set of plants using Currier A, and later he described the second set of plants using Currier B;
OR:
one guy described the first set of plants using Currier A, and later another guy described the second set of plants using Currier B;
OR:
one guy described the first set of plants using Currier A, while another guy at the same time described the second set of plants using Currier B.
I seem the only one here who fails to recognize what is that "horizontal line". Can you please explain with a screenshot?
BTW, are there any systematic differences in hands who drew A and B plants? What do experts say?
RE: A and B plants - Oocephalus - 28-01-2016
Anton: I've attached a pdf. I hope this makes it clear.
I think Currier identified different hands for the herbal A and B pages, but this could also be variation of one person's handwriting over time, at least I don't think this idea has been refuted.
RE: A and B plants - -JKP- - 28-01-2016
The hands are definitely different on some of the pages, but we don't know the sequence in which the pages were written or how many years it took to create this document (I'm sure it took years), it's hard to say how much the writer's familiarity with the Voynich text (or the writer's thinking about how the "code" should be written) changed over time. Probably everyone who's developed a new alphabet or cipher has come across instances where the code doesn't cover every situation and you have to punt to find a local solution.
Also, when you first start writing an invented alphabet, it would feel awkward, but would become more comfortable over time, less prone to errors and inconsistencies. Ideas about how something could or should be written probably evolve, as well. On the first page (which I suspect may also have been the first page written), there was obviously an intent to embellish some of the paragraphs. There's even a blank box on an inner page for adding an illuminated initial, but big-letter-style embellishments don't characterize the rest of the document.
There are pages where the text looks substantially different because the ink is of a wetter consistency and it smudged, but are the letters slightly different because it's a different hand, or did the movement of the pen have to change to accommodate the runny ink (e.g., writing faster and perhaps more sloppily so the ink doesn't puddle)?
The text on Folio 48r is substantially different from the text on some of the earlier plant pics. It has many inconsistencies and several weirdos but is this because someone else wrote it, or is it because the person writing it wasn't yet fluent in Voynichese shapes? Maybe this was an early page (we don't know in what order the text was added to the plants or to any of the pages, for that matter). I'm working on a chart to compare the handwriting on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to a couple of others. I'll post it when I can find a block of time, for those who are interested.
RE: A and B plants - ReneZ - 28-01-2016
Apart from the language A vs. language B in the herbal pages (i.e. clearly different statistics on how characters combine), and the two different hands (hand 2 being more slanted and smaller, possibly among other things), there is a third difference.
This is that the text on Herbal-B pages is on average considerably longer, in terms of number of apparent words.
Typically, there are more words per line, and more lines of writing.
This *could* be a language-related issue (so we're back at two points). It could also indicate a host of other things.
RE: A and B plants - Anton - 28-01-2016
(28-01-2016, 01:03 AM)Oocephalus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton: I've attached a pdf. I hope this makes it clear.
I think Currier identified different hands for the herbal A and B pages, but this could also be variation of one person's handwriting over time, at least I don't think this idea has been refuted.
Thanks, now it's clear. Really a tiny detail. Interesting that it's systematic.
What I meant for hands did not refer to the text (of course I know that there are different "Currier hands"), but to drawings. Can it be analyzed whether A and B plants are drawn by the same hand or by different hands?