+- 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: No text, but a visual code (/thread-2384.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 29-05-2021
Four reasons why the numbers 8 and 4, this in its old form, can be present in the VM script:
1º Of all the glyphs in the VM script, these are the least confusing: the glyph that looks like an 8 actually has the shape of an 8, and the one that looks like an old 4 also looks like it without any doubt.
2º No other glyph looks like a number except EVA-y which looks like the number 9. But in this case the glyph of the VM script usually has a longer tail than the number 9 that we see in manuscripts of the time.
3º The fact that we see precisely an 8 and a 4 and not any other number in the VM script reinforces the hypotheses that they are numbers, since we see in medieval Volvelles that they are united by their relationship with the hours of daily light in the zodiacal signs adjacent to the solstices.
4º This last reason is semantic. Since daylight hours are related to plant growth, these numbers make sense in a herbarium. Remember that in the summer solstice herbs have their greatest magical power.
RE: No text, but a visual code - Helmut Winkler - 29-05-2021
There could be a 2 and a 5 as well and you have the much worse problem that you can't be sure that a glyph always has the same meaning
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 31-05-2021
Sorry Helmut, but I don't see the numbers 2 and 5 anywhere in the VM script. I have consulted many manuscripts from the time of the VM to see how the numbers were written and the only thing I am certain is that I see the numbers 8 and 4, this one in its old form, many times written.
If we cannot agree on something that is so empirically elementary, I doubt that we can do it on anything else
RE: No text, but a visual code - Helmut Winkler - 01-06-2021
EVA-r could be a 2 and EVA-s a 5, I mean I have other reasons to think EVA-r for example to be a 2, but you should consult sometime the Hill book
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 01-06-2021
Helmut, I have no idea what book you're talking about. This problem is very easy. We just have to consult our eyes. I have seen many manuscripts with numbers from the time of the Voynich and I have not seen numbers 2 and 5 written as EVA-r and EVA-s
I can understand some confusion with the 2 because there is some trace similar to EVA-r, although the difference is noticeable.
The confusion with the number 5 I don't understand at all.
I don't like to be right for no reason. If you show me examples of what you say, I would gladly change my mind
RE: No text, but a visual code - Helmut Winkler - 02-06-2021
I meant Hill, The development off Arabic Numerals
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 02-06-2021
All I want to say is that we must surrender to the evidence. Many members of this forum have spent years, like me, researching medieval manuscripts looking for parallels with the Voynich.
If anyone has ever seen a glyph like EVA-l that was not used as the old number 4 to say it and show it, because I have not seen it. And obviously the glyph that looks like the number 8 in the VM is most likely to represent the number 8 as well. I have already said that for me they are astronomical symbols, just like all the other glyphs.
There is enormous resistance to accepting that there is nothing to read. The script is not legible, but it does make sense. It has a meaning for the humanity of the 15th century who believed in the power of the stars
RE: No text, but a visual code - Aga Tentakulus - 03-06-2021
I understand Helmut Winkler well what he means.
So the loop could also be interpreted as an old 4.
In exactly the same way, a 2 and a 5 are possible.
On the subject of proof. I can understand that one could interpret the plants and the signs of the zodiac as astronomical signs.
But we still have Quire 13 (pharmaceutical part).
To draw a reasonable background with your theory on these pages is not only difficult but simply impossible.
There is the possibility to understand something even if you cannot read the text. The sequence of images alone makes sense.
But the fact that we always have similar sequences of signs on all pages, which we regard as words, makes the theory appear to be a pure interpretation without a scientific background.
It simply takes more than a 4 and an 8.
Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 03-06-2021
You are right, my theory has no scientific background because it is not 21st century science. Understanding the VM requires another type of science, that of the 15th century.
Please, tell me how do you know that Quire 13 is the pharmaceutical part, because I only see unreadable glyph strings in any known language. Repeating that over and over again is what we've been doing for 100 years to no avail.
And regarding the numbers; in the VM I clearly see 4 and 8. Their shape can be compared with any manuscript of the time. I do not see 2 and 5 in the VM with the same shape that they appear in contemporary documents. But whoever thinks so, please show examples that everyone can see clearly.
RE: No text, but a visual code - Helmut Winkler - 03-06-2021
The whole thing could be even more complicated, there is an obvious Arab 9, the con - abbr. and there could be Roman numerals as well, EVA-i as i, EVA-l as x, Roman I and X. Not that I think so, for example I think the 8 is an ordinary Latin abbr., but there are possibilities, esspeially if you take into account that these abbr. could have multiple meanings, for example 9 as Arab 9 and the different meanings as a Latin abbr. But your 'I see 4 and 8' does not hold
Edit: I have forgottrn EVA-o, which could be an Arab Null