+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Marginalia (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v (/thread-2163.html)
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Morten St. George - 22-01-2018
(31-10-2017, 04:15 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, the advantage of this interpretation is that not only the stuff looks like those intestines, but also "lab" means abomasum in German. Abomasum is peculiar to ruminants, so not necessarily a goat: may be, say, a lamb.
BTW, it was exactly Damschen who once suggested the reading of "lab" (I quote him in my blog post referenced above), but somehow he did not pay much attention to that option.
Hi Anton,
David Jackson directed me here regarding my contention that the animal could be the South American marsh deer. The animal's ears and black-colored lower legs match the deer better than goat or lamb.
Deer is also a ruminant, but rather than intestines I think it might be the hide of the marsh deer hung up to dry, signifying that this animal was used for the parchment. Similarly, the girl depicted just below the animal would be the manuscirpt's author.
On folio 76v, you will find a girl holding up the hide of a spotted jaguar (my opinion). Please check it out to compare hides.
![[Image: img-voynich-animal-hide.jpg]](http://mortenstgeorge.info/img-voynich-animal-hide.jpg)
At the bottom of folio 79v, we again see the spots, on the hybrid spotted jaguar with crocodile head, matching the hybrid mermaid (woman with fish tail). There appears to be another cat in the water to the left of a prey animal it has just killed, scaring the lamb (or pony) representing the innocence and fear of the girls. In general, along with many other drawings, this is a rainforest scene.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Diane - 30-01-2018
Well I see it as a pot-bellied dragon, long-necked, quite cute-looking. I did once find a closely similar detail in a manuscript but that was before 2013 when a voracious bushfire decided to get a bit too "up-close and personal" with our home.
I don't see any need to suppose a very close link between a doodle-like drawing on an end-page and a bit of marginalia. No necessary connection.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Morten St. George - 30-01-2018
(30-01-2018, 04:34 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well I see it as a pot-bellied dragon, long-necked, quite cute-looking. I did once find a closely similar detail in a manuscript but that was before 2013 when a voracious bushfire decided to get a bit too "up-close and personal" with our home.
I don't see any need to suppose a very close link between a doodle-like drawing on an end-page and a bit of marginalia. No necessary connection.
I see the gal holding up her right hand in triumph, saying 'Got ya you nasty animal!'
Note that the gal is standing in water, getting ready to wash the hide, which, after skinning, is the second step in parchment making. I think the rainforest gals did it all on their own, without monks and without cows.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Anton - 30-01-2018
Hi Morten,
My focus on the abomasum has been not about the exact animal (whether lamb, deer or otherwise - so far it's ruminant it would fit the concept), but about that "lab" is rennet-bag in German. Being augmented with the pics of the ruminant-like animal and the abomasum-like object, this (amongst some other pieces of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia) directs one to a question of what does that mean that the scribe picked up German (of all possible languages) to inscript at least part of f116v. This question becomes even more interesting in the view of the last line, which combines Voynichese with plain text - suggesting that it was a person who "understood" Voynichese who wrote the marginalia. In other words, the person knew at least a bit of some kind of those days' "German" and preferred to use it on this occasion.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Morten St. George - 30-01-2018
(30-01-2018, 10:27 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Morten,
My focus on the abomasum has been not about the exact animal (whether lamb, deer or otherwise - so far it's ruminant it would fit the concept), but about that "lab" is rennet-bag in German. Being augmented with the pics of the ruminant-like animal and the abomasum-like object, this (amongst some other pieces of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia) directs one to a question of what does that mean that the scribe picked up German (of all possible languages) to inscript at least part of f116v. This question becomes even more interesting in the view of the last line, which combines Voynichese with plain text - suggesting that it was a person who "understood" Voynichese who wrote the marginalia. In other words, the person knew at least a bit of some kind of those days' "German" and preferred to use it on this occasion.
I'm confused: Are you insinuating that the script on the last page of the VMS, in contrast to the drawings of animal and woman, was not made by the original author but was added at a later date?
Per my theory, the decoding of the VMS (and publication of parts of it) was the first project of a secret society called the Rose Cross. As you probably know, their manifesto was written in German.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - -JKP- - 31-01-2018
Quote:Morten St George:
I'm confused: Are you insinuating that the script on the last page of the VMS, in contrast to the drawings of animal and woman, was not made by the original author but was added at a later date?
It's not the same handwriting as the main text, so the text on the last page is probably marginalia.
Whether the person who wrote it knew the people who created the manuscript is a completely different question. The handwriting is consistent with script from the early 15th century (I have determined this through my own research after collecting thousands of samples), so it's possible whoever wrote it lived at approximately the same time as the manuscript was created.
As for the images, they look like they were drawn by the same person who drew the illustrations in the main text.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Morten St. George - 31-01-2018
(31-01-2018, 01:09 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Morten St George:
I'm confused: Are you insinuating that the script on the last page of the VMS, in contrast to the drawings of animal and woman, was not made by the original author but was added at a later date?
It's not the same handwriting as the main text, so the text on the last page is probably marginalia.
Whether the person who wrote it knew the people who created the manuscript is a completely different question. The handwriting is consistent with script from the early 15th century (I have determined this through my own research after collecting thousands of samples), so it's possible whoever wrote it lived at approximately the same time as the manuscript was created.
As for the images, they look like they were drawn by the same person who drew the illustrations in the main text.
If the script on the last page is marginalia, then it becomes almost certain that the last page is a signature page, that is, that the depicted animal (which is not a cow) was used for parchment and that the depicted woman was the author.
I do believe that it is possible to date certain quirks in handwriting, such as an isolated q with a crossbar through it. And if you see an s that looks like an f, you can say that it was likely written prior to the 18th century. There may also be some regional quirks that can be dated. But for many of the basic Latin letters, I see a lot of consistency across the past one thousand years. In fact, parts of those month names look like something I myself could have written.
Per my theories, it is impossible for the marginalia on the last page to be in the handwriting style of the 15th century, so I think you are allowing the carbon-dating results to influence your thinking. It can only be handwriting of the early 13th century or of the late 16th century because the author of the VMS would have been the descendant of people who fled persecution in Europe around the middle of the 13th century. They would have had no further contact with Europe or with how handwriting evolved there.
I think someone is trying to claim that something on the last page was written in German. Is that true?
Per my theories, the only person to have been in possession of the VMS in the late 16th century, and whose native tongue was German, was the linguist John Florio. Do you have a sample of Florio's handwriting to compare?
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Anton - 31-01-2018
Quote:I'm confused: Are you insinuating that the script on the last page of the VMS, in contrast to the drawings of animal and woman, was not made by the original author but was added at a later date?
On the contrary. The last line manifests itself as having been put down by the "author". (I would not agree that the handwriting of aror sheey differs in any respect from that of the main text). Since, obviously, it succeeds the spell block (not precedes it) in the folio, one can conclude that the spell block was also put down by the "author". As to the first line, it looks like the handwriting is similar to that of the rest of the lines, so it can be attributed to the same "author" as well.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Koen G - 31-01-2018
That's a conclusion I don't necessarily follow, Anton. How many hands did Currier discern in the main text again? Some five or six? Which one does the Voynichese writing match? Why can't it have been written by a later owner who also mastered the script?
Either way, if it's true that a handful of people wrote the main text and if we must conclude that the marginalia were written by one of those, it's possible that they were only added by a relatively minor player. Or not.
But does the evidence really allow us to conclude that the marginalia were written by the two main scribes?
Additionally, marginalia on last pages often go all over the place. Their spatial order need not imply chronological order.
RE: [split] The Strange Thing on 116v - Helmut Winkler - 31-01-2018
Per my theories, it is impossible for the marginalia on the last page to be in the handwriting style of the 15th century,
I think it's not a good idea to bend facts to fit a theory. I can assure you that JKP is right and the non-Voynich script on f. 116v is 15th c.