+- 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: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections (/thread-2658.html)
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Davidsch - 28-09-2019
I have list of important mistakes, but the time one has to spend to make a list of mistakes (not corrections), is not really worth publication;
The underlying theory what is a mistake, has to be understood and accepted, otherwise the list itself will not be accepted and it's a waste of time imo.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - nablator - 01-10-2019
(19-09-2019, 06:04 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(19-09-2019, 05:43 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd really like to see a list of alleged corrections in the ms..You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Could this be a correction (not listed in the above link) ?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
On the other hand the weird shape on f20v:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
reminds me of these two (does anyone know their meaning?) found on Trinity College, Cambridge, ms. O.1.57 (15th century) f.126v (charm to catch a thief using a loaf of bread):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - MarcoP - 01-10-2019
(01-10-2019, 04:28 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.reminds me of these two (does anyone know their meaning?) found on Trinity College, Cambridge, ms. O.1.57 (15th century) f.126v (charm to catch a thief using a loaf of bread):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
From the context, I would read it as "recipe"
"pro rebus ablatis recipe unum panem et fac in parte inferiore ho[c] signum * quo facto recipe iii cultellos..."
for stolen things, take a loaf and make this sign at its bottom; this done, take three knives...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - nablator - 01-10-2019
(01-10-2019, 05:42 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From the context, I would read it as "recipe"
You are right. I could not see Rx at all with the loop above. Amazing!
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Helmut Winkler - 01-10-2019
69r seems to be an ordinary smudge or blot (very likely ink or even dirt)
20v could be several things, e.g. the abbr. for 'est', or a Z, there are some instances where Z is used in medieval Latin, zodiacus is one of them, both examples wrritten over or between two other glyphs (e and o?), the abbr. for half a drachma
the Trinity ms abbr. looks to me like a ligature of the abbr. for et and cum, Et cum is written unabbr. later in the text, the red ink seems to be just a flourish
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - nablator - 01-10-2019
(01-10-2019, 06:04 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.69r seems to be an ordinary smudge or blot (very likely ink or even dirt)
It's a bit fuzzy/faded but I thought someone may have noticed the abnormal dotted "i" (okay, maybe the dot is just dirt too) and written ho in a reddish ink to make it tchos or tchoeos instead of tchieos.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Wladimir D - 01-10-2019
I think they forgot to write “r,” and then inserted. In elementary strokes it turns out; c4ci ^ c />
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Helmut Winkler - 01-10-2019
@ Nablator
I have noticed the dot, but from the colour it looks like the bigger smudge and I think it is there by chance, what worries me more are the two small dots under the right loop of the gallow
@ Wladimir
I see what you mean, but the strokes are different from the usual 9, it is very strange
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Wladimir D - 01-10-2019
HELMUT, you misunderstood. 9 = c), and this is a slash! Application in
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Mark Knowles - 01-10-2019
As may well have been mentioned it seems to me that a lack or a dearth of scribal mistakes could be explain by either of these, so there may well be other possible explanations:
1) All the text is nonsense I.e. as in a hoax. Clearly nonsense with mistakes is still nonsense, so there would be little point in making corrections.
2) The text was prepared i.e. the author had carefully worked out what he/she was going to write and then just copied from his/her workpad or whatever he/she used. I think this could be indicative of the use of a cipher as in that instance it would be a non-trivial task to work out how one should write the word that one wanted to write and so some kind of workpad would be very helpful.