+- 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: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? (/thread-3259.html)
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - -JKP- - 27-06-2020
There are a few places where it looks like there might have been scraping, but it's so hard to tell if you don't have the manuscript in your hands or under a microscope.
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - bunny - 27-06-2020
Don't think so, not a mistake and not EVA s, the stem is too straight, EVA r. Also, look at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 3rd line down and you will see all the considered x's at the end of some words. So the "mistake" is not pure VM script and probably connected to whoever wrote last folio. One of few (if any other?) places where VM uses abbreviation Rx (rx) for recipe. Who knows why, could even indicate the only real medicine/recipe in the entire manuscript etc. Would be interesting to know if any other "mistakes" of any kind relate to the non VM scripts. Like finding the odd Greek word in Latin texts.
Bunny
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - ReneZ - 27-06-2020
It was Anne Nill who said that there are none, and she made it clear that this was from her own observation. She also made it clear that this was in comparison with other manuscripts, where corrections are easy to find.
I don't think that there are none, but the number is certainly small.
I have 12 at my web site (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), but I am not sure that all of them can really be considered corrections.
The one that is the topic of this thread is among them, and looks like one of the more convincing cases.
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - bunny - 29-06-2020
(27-06-2020, 08:42 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It was Anne Nill who said that there are none, and she made it clear that this was from her own observation. She also made it clear that this was in comparison with other manuscripts, where corrections are easy to find.
I don't think that there are none, but the number is certainly small.
I have 12 at my web site (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), but I am not sure that all of them can really be considered corrections.
The one that is the topic of this thread is among them, and looks like one of the more convincing cases.
I don't think any of them are mistakes as such, though most look like ink blobs which is just messy writing. They certainly have non of the strikeouts and arrowing seen in medieval manuscripts, it's usually pretty clear where inserted letters or corrected text goes. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "correction" is just plain unreadable unfortunately. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has an s above the a but no arrowing or indication where it is inserted or what it replaces suggesting it's not an error but something akin to suggested Rx on other folio, it seems unlikely one would forget how to spell a 3 letter word like dog and put og then add the d later. Likewise the qo*?8 on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does not appear to be an error but another rare insertion, the "correction"could refer to a deity named in the following word.
In spite of the few weird letters it look like it is a copied piece and the author had no idea what they were writing, but tried to copy the script (or of course follow the method of a fake constructed text) faithfully. Given all the many, many titles in the astronomy, astrology, biology and herbal section are all pretty spot on does suggest it is not an original work at all unless constructed each word on the spot.
Bunny
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - -JKP- - 29-06-2020
Strikeouts are uncommon in medieval manuscripts. I rarely see them even though I look at manuscripts every day.
What you might be perceiving as "strikeouts" is actually highlighting. They ran a colored line across a word to make it stand out. It's hard to read, but it's not a correction.
If something was to be corrected, they put dots underneath the word (occasionally above the word).
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - -JKP- - 29-06-2020
(29-06-2020, 07:30 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has an s above the a but no arrowing or indication where it is inserted or what it replaces suggesting it's not an error but something akin to suggested Rx on other folio,...
Bunny
In Latin (I'm not saying the VMS is Latin, I'm just saying that it has a shape-mate in Latin that is written in the same position), that is the ur/tur symbol (it looks like a 2 or sometimes like an r with a tail). It was typically written above the word. Most of the time it was used at the end of a word, but occasionally it was added in the middle.
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - -JKP- - 29-06-2020
(29-06-2020, 07:30 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
Likewise the qo*?8 on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does not appear to be an error but another rare insertion, the "correction"could refer to a deity named in the following word.
...
The small superscripted 9 shape is the most common medieval abbreviation in languages that use Latin characters. It was so common that pen tests often included it in the alphabet after the letter z. So common that even unabbreviated text sometimes used this one abbreviation. So common that the modern apostrophe is shaped somewhat the same way.
It didn't make any difference whether it was written large and in line with the other characters, or if it was written small and superscripted, both forms meant the same thing (con/com/us/um symbol).
Most of the time, the 9 character (in the VMS) is in line with the other letters, as in oly, but it shows up superscripted about 3 or so times (I can't remember exactly how many).
Some scribes chose to write it one way or the other (superscripted or inline). Some scribes alternated between the two positions without any particular pattern.
If you look closely at the curved shape above sh, you will notice that some of them are also written quite clearly as the common 9 symbol (the small version). Others are written like a semicircle (which was a different abbreviation symbol, a curved macron, which meant the same thing as a straight macron). I don't know if the "caps" above sh are intended to be different or if they are simply pen variations (I tend to think they are pen variations), but the scribes may have sometimes unconsciously written them as a 9 char because it is so common in medieval texts. The hand gets used to writing certain shapes in certain ways.
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - -JKP- - 30-06-2020
(29-06-2020, 07:30 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
In spite of the few weird letters it look like it is a copied piece and the author had no idea what they were writing, but tried to copy the script (or of course follow the method of a fake constructed text) faithfully. Given all the many, many titles in the astronomy, astrology, biology and herbal section are all pretty spot on does suggest it is not an original work at all unless constructed each word on the spot.
...
The ones you pointed out are not weird in medieval texts, they are normal and common.
Whether the VMS was copied, I don't know. A person can copy from someone else's text or they can copy from their own draft version. Given its cleanness and intricacies of some of the drawings (like the rosettes folio), I would suspect that the VMS is copied from something. If not, then the person was very disciplined.
Such discipline did exist. Jewish scribes writing out the Torah were not allowed to make mistakes. If they did, the Torah could not be used (it's possible that it could still be used as an exemplar, if the mistakes were corrected, I'm not sure if this was permitted, but it could not be used for services in the synagogue). It would be an incredible feat to write out a Torah with no errors, but it was done.
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - LisaFaginDavis - 30-06-2020
Scribe 1 seems to write a larger number of unusual forms than the other scribes, for example, there are a few split benches (54v, line 1) and strange gallows (42v, line 2), plus corrections and overwrites, like the overwritten gallows on 17v, line 4. These might be "mistakes," although of course we can't know what until we know how to read them.
RE: f20v - Did the scribe make a mistake? - Torsten - 30-06-2020
Indeed, Currier A is more diverse than Currier B. This happens in terms of glyph shapes, but also in terms of text statistics.