+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all (/thread-653.html)
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 01-09-2016
Obrist's "Wind diagrams and Medieval Cosmology" discusses a square diagram vaguely similar to Byrhtferth's (discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and to the Rosettes page. It's from ms 387 in Vienna (dating to 818 ca).
The circles at the center of the sides of the square correspond to the four cardinal directions. The circles at the corners correspond to the four elements. The center is occupied by a diagram similar to a T-O world map, but the ordering of the three continents is peculiar: the largest continent usually is Asia, here it is Europe.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Anton - 01-09-2016
I also provided one example where the continents were swapped in the T-O map. Don't remember if it were in this forum or in comments elsewhere. This makes it more difficult to build guesses, 'cause the VMS author may have adhered to a non-standard representation.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 02-09-2016
(01-09-2016, 09:21 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also provided one example where the continents were swapped in the T-O map. Don't remember if it were in this forum or in comments elsewhere. This makes it more difficult to build guesses, 'cause the VMS author may have adhered to a non-standard representation.
Thank you, Anton! I would love to see that if you can find a link!
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Anton - 02-09-2016
Dug through my email and found that it was in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
See Cod. S I 167, f55v. Available at e-codices.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - MarcoP - 02-09-2016
(02-09-2016, 05:10 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dug through my email and found that it was in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
See Cod. S I 167, f55v. Available at e-codices.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thank you, Anton! This is different again, with Europe and Africa swapped. Very cool!
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Diane - 09-09-2016
Sorry to sound impatient - but I did not offer a 'proposition' that the folio MIGHT be a map.
I analysed the image in detail, identified the structures, range, and particular details of topography, architecture and so on.
That it was a map was a conclusion from the evidence, and it seems to be a little frivolous to create alternative notions without troubling to address the existing research, evidence (primary and secondary).
IMO
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Anton - 09-09-2016
Hi Diane,
Not trusting my English, I consulted Webster and it says (for "proposition"):
Quote:
- : something (such as a plan or offer) that is presented to a person or group of people to consider
- : a statement to be proved, explained, or discussed
- : something that someone intends to do or deal with
So a conclusion may be a proposition when it is addressed to an audience. I don't see any big problem here. What is essential is whether your trail of research led (or led not) you to the conclusion that that is a map. If I'm not mistaken, it did. Whether it is really a map, will be ultimately revealed when (oh when?
) the Voynichese is decrypted.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Diane - 09-09-2016
Anton,
The conclusions of research imply the presence of evidence and argument, where a 'proposition' is generally used to describe what Voynicheros call a 'theory' - and which is just a vague idea that suits the proponent.
It's as if a mechanic pulled your car apart, identified each part of it, and told you what sort of engine it had, who manufactured it, and exactly what was wrong with it, and you responded by saying "Hey, here's an idea - what if it's not a car but a rubber dinghy?"
The first is a conclusion; the second a proposition in this instance. Totally unfounded notion.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - -JKP- - 09-09-2016
(09-09-2016, 08:27 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton,
The conclusions of research imply the presence of evidence and argument, where a 'proposition' is generally used to describe what Voynicheros call a 'theory' - and which is just a vague idea that suits the proponent.
It's as if a mechanic pulled your car apart, identified each part of it, and told you what sort of engine it had, who manufactured it, and exactly what was wrong with it, and you responded by saying "Hey, here's an idea - what if it's not a car but a rubber dinghy?"
The first is a conclusion; the second a proposition in this instance. Totally unfounded notion.
To those who agree with the idea, it may appear as a conclusion.
To those who disagree or have some level of doubt, it will still be viewed as a proposition.
RE: Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all - Anton - 09-09-2016
Maybe this is an English language subtlety unrevealed in Webster, I do not know. But as I said, I do not see any essential misrepresentation of facts in the statement described.
Personally, I would freely call any statement brought forward to the scientific audience a "proposition" (which is then to be defended in a scientific discussion). Something is "proposed" = offered for consideration and review, and then it is defended or refuted, confirmed or disproved.
In any case, I would say that accenting these tiny language subtleties becomes an international arbitration court, but not an international web-forum.
I would suggest to return to the subject matter of the thread.