+- 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: Finding a combination (/thread-1938.html)
Finding a combination - R. Sale - 11-06-2017
First of all, in confessing my ignorance, I'd like to say that I envision the investigation to proceed at the glyph (symbol) level, rather than looking at the parts of individual VMs symbols.
The analysis of text is the search for a method of interpretation. But what is that method applied to? Is it to raw text or to abstracted statistics? What is the choice of subject material to be analyzed? And furthermore what is the source for the choice of methodology? Is method something the investigator learned or invented? And then it is just applied wherever and however?
Or could method and material both be contained in the text waiting to be discovered, common medieval information waiting to be recognized? Is the method contained in the text, in the seventeen symbol sequence of f57v? And is the specific text segment as subject for analysis designated by the markers on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and validated by references to a well-known religious tradition and related historical events?
Is there some way that these two elements might work in combination?
RE: Finding a combination - davidjackson - 11-06-2017
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your question.
In order to analyse the text, you select (or create) a method of interpretation, as you put it. The rest of your questions seem, to me, to depend upon your method.
RE: Finding a combination - R. Sale - 11-06-2017
Indeed, it does depend on method. And the question or concern with methodology is the type or choice of method. For instance, there have been various researchers, each claiming to read the VMs text in a particular language: Latin, English, Arabic, Nahuatl and so on. There's statistical analysis, there's gematria, there's stroke theory and so on. Where do these methods come from? And more importantly, do they have a substantial basis in the text and the illustrations of the VMs? Is the choice of method brought to bear by the researcher or is it in some way developed from within the VMs? So rather than using an externally applied method, is it possible for the VMs to contain and transmit a method of interpretation that is based on the glyphs (symbols)?
If the VMs author was an educated person of medieval times, then that is the style of investigation we should endeavor to attain. Much work has been done, but progress is limited. Methods of interpretation have failed, many because they were imposed by the investigator. What to do?
Let's try to take on a medieval perspective, specifically in arithmetic and particularly in the medieval forms of the numerals '4' and '7' as displayed in various sources such as the illustration of Typus Arithmetica. Knowing these examples then, we examine the VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the noted 4 by 17 symbol sequence. And in particular let us note that the second symbol of the sequence is similar in form to the medieval numeral '4'. Likewise there is a similarity between the fifth symbol in the sequence and the medieval numeral '7'. These are visual similarities of form. Visual similarity is generally considered subjective. Some consider it significant, others less so.
However, in addition to visual similarity, there is another factor. That factor is location (placement, positioning). The placement of the two VMs symbols is the same, with two symbols in between, as the standard, medieval number system, which has the numbers '5' and '6' in between.
An educated person of the medieval period might know Greek. And looking at the symbols of this same sequence might see the first symbol as similar in form to the Greek letter omicron. And likewise the fifth symbol as similar to the Greek letter lambda. These again are visual similarities of form. And again, the positioning of the VMs symbols, with three glyphs intervening, is the same as in the Greek alphabet, with three letters intervening, reading from right to left, which ancient Greek allows. This sort of proper placement is not subjective or based on opinion or squinting just right. Placement is an objective fact.
An educated medieval person might know Roman numerals and that the Roman numeral "V' equals five. The same fifth symbol in the VMs sequence has the form of an inverted "v". An inverted version of numeral '5' (interpretation) placed in position five of the sequence (location). A third example of subjective interpretation confirmed by objective location - all involving the form of the fifth symbol of the 4 by 17 sequence of VMs f57v.
Can this be accidental? Not in my VMs. Three separate examples of traditional, medieval interpretations of appearance validated by proper placement all focused on one symbol. There is a distinct impression that something intentional has happened to create this complex construction. Can this be turned into a method or tool to better understand the written text?
But method is only one part of the equation. Method may only function when used on the right constituents. There is a similar complex of relationships that concerns heraldry and church tradition - appearance backed up by positional confirmations - that leads to the marked examples of circular bands of text, particularly those on VMs f71r. The outer line in particular seems a prime candidate as the subject of interpretation.
Being based on a knowledge of standard and traditional interpretations of visual form and known historical events, these complex constructions exist. But do they have purpose? Is it possible that both the method and the proper subject material can be found in the VMs? And then is there a way in which they can be used together to make a working combination?