+- 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: Thinking about anomalous gallows... (/thread-3156.html)
RE: Thinking about anomalous gallows... - LisaFaginDavis - 15-04-2020
This is a fundamental question of paleographical theory. When do graphic variants signify the inconsistencies of a single human (and thus imperfect) writer and when do they signify a change of hand? There is no scientific and objective answer. Each analyst much make their own judgement based on their own knowledge and experience. In addition to the fine details of glyphs and symbols, you also have to back up and consider that general character of a hand. I usually end up at the least complicated scenario, that is, a smaller inventory of characters written by a smaller number of scribes, each of which has tendencies that can be identified but also minor variants that can be dismissed. In the case of the VMS, many of these questions will remain uncertain until we know what the glyphs signify. Only then will we know whether these variants are significant or not. I believe they are not significant, but someone may prove me wrong someday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa/ As a specialist (learning handwriting) how you can explain strange statistical anomalies.
For instance. There are 90 benches of various types on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page. There are 206 characters on this page based on the “c” form. (d-28, s-6, o-100, y-30, a-15, e-33). In 6 cases, the left leg of the bench is a dot (blot), compared with the other 206 characters, where there is not a single blot. But the pen and hand remain unchanged.
Such examples can be given on different pages. For example, in benches 47r (4 blots), 47v (3 blots), and in other symbols there are no blots. In general, this rule can be extended to the entire manuscript (although there are blots in other symbols, but a very small percentage). Moreover, the height of the blot is in many cases less than the basic “c” - shape.
Can a blot (dot) be considered an independent glyph?
[/quote]
RE: Thinking about anomalous gallows... - DONJCH - 15-04-2020
None of Aga's examples were eva -d though!
This is an example, here's hoping it works:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
f70r2, about 10-11 o'clock, outer circle. As JKP says, gap at the bottom and straight vertical.
This one actually looks like "c ankh"
I was interested because I thought that writing in circles could perhaps force small errors which could give an insight into how the scribe was attempting to construct the glyphs. Does that make any sense?
RE: Thinking about anomalous gallows... - Wladimir D - 15-04-2020
Lisa and all. My question was not just the features of the underlines of different people. I was interested in the mechanics of the movement of the pen (ink outflow), which leads to the formation of blots on this page exclusively in the left foot of the bench when writing the same “c” -shaped form, which is also involved and in other glyphs.
What effect can this have?
Until I get an intelligible answer, I will remain a supporter of the existence of a blot (dot) as an independent glyph.
The answer is that these 6 glyphs are written with the left hand, and the rest of the text - with the right hand - is not accepted.
I believe that when checking the text, the author more clearly drew some of the legs of the benches (both points and c-shapes) so that there was no confusion in the unambiguous reading of the text.
RE: Thinking about anomalous gallows... - -JKP- - 15-04-2020
(15-04-2020, 03:26 PM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
I was interested because I thought that writing in circles could perhaps force small errors which could give an insight into how the scribe was attempting to construct the glyphs. Does that make any sense?
Yes, Don, it does (at least to me).