+- 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: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? (/thread-2394.html)
Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - Koen G - 07-06-2018
A hot topic on the forum these days is how and why the VM script resembles Latin script, and people like JKP have done a good job of stressing the importance of this resemblance.
I've been thinking about a way to make this more tangible for people like myself who don't have that much experience yet reading various scripts. And at the same time, impose some system on the comparisons.
Let's assume for this exercise the following:
- The Voynichese glyph set was composed at one point before or during the MS creation.
- Voynichese glyphs were chosen, intentionally or not, resembling more or less contemporary Latin glyphs, likely including contemporary scribal habits.
I've made an example from the Trinity college herbal, not because it must be the best candidate but because it is a slightly comparable script which I've studied for a while. I'll try to add psd template as an attachment as well. I'm going by purely visual similarity, not thinking too much about meaning. Not using numerals for 4, 8, 9 since those will be common to most MSS. added "iin" as one glyph to keep options open. "i" is a minim so it makes little sense to add it separately.
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - -JKP- - 07-06-2018
I have examples of all the shapes but maybe it's better for people to look at the actual manuscripts because I've been saying it for years to enormous skepticism, and it seems that perhaps people have to see it for themselves to believe me.
Some pointers...
You can easily find all three versions of EVA-m in Medieval manuscripts. Note that in Latin there is straight EVA-m (ris), straight EVA-m with a tail (tis) and rounded EVA-m. This is also true in the VMS. As I said years ago, "All three are represented."
Okay, to help you improve your chart, regarding shapes on the third row...
Koen the fourth character in your example is mismatched. It's a "9" character. It can be inline or superscripted. It's not equivalent to r-with-tail. Look for it at the ends of words and you will find it. It stands for -us/-um at the ends of words (it can also be found at the beginnings of words, but not as frequently).
Also, look for EVA-m at the ends of words (as it is in the VMS) and you will find it.
The one that looks like the number 4 (modern 4) is not equivalent to the "-rum" character you posted. "-rum" falls at the ends of words and VMS 4 is at the beginning. Note that in the VMS it frequently is written with a soft rounded loop, it's not always pointed like the example you posted. In some manuscripts the letter "q" is written like this (and is usually at the beginnings of words), it will be both pointed and rounded (I have examples). It is more similar to the Latin "q" than to the Latin "-rum" abbreviation in shape and position. It's not quite like a "q" but if you are doing an equivalency chart, it's better to choose the one that is more similar.
The 6th from the left (EVA-l) is the number 4 in Latin. Look for compotist manuscripts from the 15th century after they switched from Roman Numerals to Indic numerals (and before they switched to modern numerals). This shape was also a scribal abbreviation in early medieval documents, but it was mostly superscripted.
The figure-8 shape that often stands for d or s in Latin manuscripts can be found in French manuscripts in particular when it stands for d, and can be found as a terminal-s in many countries when it stands for s (when it stands for s it is a corruption of the Greek sigma with the tail looped around a little bit extra).
Now, in the first row...
It's very easy to find EVA-k. It stands for "Item" in Latin and thus is usually at the beginnings of lines.
If you want to see something very similar to EVA-t (it's not common but does exist), look at Nuremberg manuscripts from the mid-15th century. Some of the scribes took the Latin abbreviation for -is (which is a loop with a descender) and flipped it horizontal instead of vertical so it looks like EVA-t.
You'll find the benched characters in words where many letters have been left out. For examples, words like abbatis are sometimes written with abbt with a long horizontal line through the ascenders in the two b chars. Benched characters are also found in Greek, especially when it is written vertically (but has a different meaning than benched characters in Latin).
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - Koen G - 07-06-2018
I get what you're saying, but the reality is that not many people will try these things for themselves
But that's one of the reasons I made this thread, to make it more involved and tangible.On the other hand, I'd like to find out how far you can go with a single manuscript, just to see what we're dealing with. In my example, I agree that about 4 items are mismatched:
- the "K" gallow is actually a capital H and looks different
- I would say that the subscript 9 does correspond to VM 9, but it does not match EVA S, so that's another mismatch.
- EVA q looks different than the "rum"
- A better r-rotunda can certainly be found
Is there a particular manuscript you'd recommend me to look at next?
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - -JKP- - 07-06-2018
Also, one more thing... and this is the reason it takes me hours to blog about each glyph... and is one of the most important keys to understanding medieval Latin and possibly also the VMS glyph-shapes...
Latin scribal conventions are like lego blocks. You can take them apart AND COMBINE THEM IN DIFFERENT WAYS and it's completely legitimate to do so. A scribe could write the same word six different ways and be understood by other scribes.
For example, the 9 shape is most commonly used for "con-/com-" when it is at the beginnings of words, but you could also use the less common reverse-c shape (a completely different shape) instead, and every scribe would understand it.
Or, you could use the -is abbreviation (loop with descender) to mean -is, but if you used it to mean -rem, -tem, or -em, every scribe would understand it.
To understand the Lego-aspect of the scribal conventions, look at the "-is" shape on the right-hand side of EVA-k and the "-is" shape on the right-hand side of EVA-m. In Latin, the part on the right is a very common and flexible scribal convention—it can be added to any letter. Usually it means -is but if you substituted it for -rem, every scribe would understand it. Think about this when evaluating the shapes of the regular glyphs and the gallows characters.
Similarly, as some of the scribes from Nuremberg did in their medical recipes, you can FLIP the scribal "-is" shape from vertical to horizontal and it will still be understood by other scribes. You can also write the abbreviation for -ur/-tur (it looks like the number 2 and sometimes like r-with-a-tail) at many different angles and it will still be understood. So the shapes are flexible in choice, in position, and sometimes also in orientation.
---
The VMS glyphs follow scribal conventions in terms of shape and position, but if they ALSO follow scribal conventions in terms of which parts can be combined, then some of the VMS glyphs are ligatures (they represent more than one character).
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - -JKP- - 07-06-2018
(07-06-2018, 08:51 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- EVA q looks different than the "rum"
Agreed... EVA doesn't look like rum. Nothing in the VMS seems to resemble rum. EVA-q is more similar to Latin q than to any other character (it is sometimes written in Latin with a pointed loop, and it is sometimes written in Voynichese with a soft loop).
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - MarcoP - 07-06-2018
Hi Koen,
a couple of years ago, I posted this image on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The sources are (top to bottom):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Leipzig, 1470 - pointed out by Davidsch
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Switzerland, 1459 - pointed out on voynichanalysis.wordpress.com
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Switzerland, 1455 - pointed out by JKP
I did include numbers at least from the third ms. Not sure about the others.
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - Koen G - 07-06-2018
Thanks, Marco, those are quite impressive. If you add some numerals to the second one you almost get full coverage. It's interesting that we always end up in scripts with positional variation as well.
But what are we to make of the fact that those MSS are quite late? I'm getting some weird ideas that involve primacy of the image and later additions...
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - MarcoP - 07-06-2018
(07-06-2018, 09:53 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks, Marco, those are quite impressive. If you add some numerals to the second one you almost get full coverage. It's interesting that we always end up in scripts with positional variation as well.
But what are we to make of the fact that those MSS are quite late? I'm getting some weird ideas that involve primacy of the image and later additions...
Before jumping to weird conclusions, I would suggest at least counting up to ten and browsing through all the St.Gall late XIV and early XV Century manuscripts
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - -JKP- - 08-06-2018
(07-06-2018, 09:53 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks, Marco, those are quite impressive. If you add some numerals to the second one you almost get full coverage. It's interesting that we always end up in scripts with positional variation as well.
But what are we to make of the fact that those MSS are quite late? I'm getting some weird ideas that involve primacy of the image and later additions...
Those shapes are found all the way back to the Carolingian scripts, but the way they are rendered in the late 14th century and 15th centuries (with a slant and without the serifs) is more consistent with the way they are rendered in the VMS. This form of Gothic cursive was emerging between 1350 and 1400 (and became more like the later text by 1390) and was on the wane by the early 1500s when humanist scripts superseded the loopy (and ugly) Gothic cursive.
---
Since it is directly relevant to this thread, I dragged out one of my draft articles on ris/cis/tis (and pics I hadn't previously had time to insert) and posted it just now. It's a follow-up to a previous post on ris/cis/tis with more examples. You can find it here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
I have a dozen draft articles on these very topics. I just need to insert the clips, which always seems to take more time than one would expect.
RE: Which other manuscript contain the most Voynichese glyphs? - -JKP- - 08-06-2018
Koen, in Latin scribal conventions EVA-s is Latin e or c with a tail. It's very common. It stands for er/eus/ce/cer/cre and numerous other things.
It can stand alone (as it does in the VMS) or can be used within words, but it's usually used at the ends of words (or alone) so that the tail doesn't clobber nearby letters (not that they worried too much about that, but crossing over another letter had a different meaning, so they usually spelled it out when it was within a word).