+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-32.html)
+---- Forum: Positions we can agree upon (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-53.html)
+---- Thread: [Imagery] [Suspended] About the products (/thread-760.html)
Pages:
1
2
[Suspended] About the products - Koen G - 16-09-2016
1) The botanical folios in the manuscript exclusively depict plants and plant parts. There is no reference to animal products.
2) There are two possible exceptions in the "small plants" section. A colored cube and a frog.
RE: About the products - -JKP- - 16-09-2016
(16-09-2016, 07:18 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The botanical folios in the manuscript exclusively refer to plants and plant parts. There is no reference to animal products.
You might want to reword "refer to" to "represent" (or "depict"). When you say "refer to" it has a broader meaning. It's possible the plants refer to all sorts of non-plant concepts, but they do seem to represent plants.
To answer the question...
It depends whether the "cube" in the small plants section is resin or mineral (or something else). If it's resin (e.g., myrrh, frankincense, dried balsam, bdellium, etc.) then they may all be plants/plant parts.
If the cube is alchemical mercury or a mineral, then it would be an exception to this statement.
RE: About the products - MarcoP - 17-09-2016
(16-09-2016, 11:16 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2016, 07:18 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The botanical folios in the manuscript exclusively refer to plants and plant parts. There is no reference to animal products.
You might want to reword "refer to" to "represent" (or "depict"). When you say "refer to" it has a broader meaning. It's possible the plants refer to all sorts of non-plant concepts, but they do seem to represent plants.
To answer the question...
It depends whether the "cube" in the small plants section is resin or mineral (or something else). If it's resin (e.g., myrrh, frankincense, dried balsam, bdellium, etc.) then they may all be plants/plant parts.
If the cube is alchemical mercury or a mineral, then it would be an exception to this statement.
Hi David,
I agree with your suggestion: we don't know what the text refers to, while we can discuss what the images depict.
I guess that Koen is referring only to the herbal section, excluding the pharma section.
A good way to make this clear would be to list the folio range you consider relevant.
Another possible "small plants" exception is the frog in f102r2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: About the products - Koen G - 17-09-2016
I added a second line with exceptions.
Personally I think Diane may be right that the blue cube is wrapped indigo, but I agree that this is not certain and it should be noted as a possible exception.
RE: About the products - MarcoP - 17-09-2016
The botanical folios in the manuscript exclusively depict plants and plant parts. There is no reference to animal products.
This is tricky: I am sorry but reading this it does not sound right. The limits of my English show up
f33r does depict two human heads, but they are meant to represent bulbs. Or can we say that it does not depict human heads?
RE: About the products - Koen G - 17-09-2016
No, you are right Marco. This is the reason why I originally used the word "refer". Does anyone have a suggestion for a better phrasing?
What we want to say is basically that there are only plants, and not, for example, beaver testicles or other animal ingredients. This is relevant because animal parts were used in various traditions, and hence depicted in some manuscripts.
RE: About the products - MarcoP - 17-09-2016
(17-09-2016, 10:50 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, you are right Marco. This is the reason why I originally used the word "refer". Does anyone have a suggestion for a better phrasing?
What we want to say is basically that there are only plants, and not, for example, beaver testicles or other animal ingredients. This is relevant because animal parts were used in various traditions, and hence depicted in some manuscripts.
I agree with this, but can we hope to have wide agreement on the concept of "ingredients"? What about your You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.?
Slightly off-topic: it is interesting that 116v has animal ingredients (possibly as many as 3: billy goat liver, goat milk and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. / rennet-bag). But this is not part of the herbal or pharma sections.
RE: About the products - Koen G - 17-09-2016
Yeah, ingredients should be "products", like in the statement, that's wider.
Like you say, the marginalia should be discussed separately. Feel free to launch some statements
RE: About the products - Diane - 17-09-2016
Koen,
Personally I think "refer" is quite ok when we don't whether, or to what degree, the original maker(s) and users meant the token images in the 'roots and leaves section' literally.
btw, I prefer that description "roots and leaves" section to 'pharma'' section, given that there is no evidence that anything in it refers to, or depicts, pharmaceutical ingredients.
In fact, some of the few among those items on which others have agreed is my identification of the luffa - when very young it could be eaten as a vegetable, but its chief use was as a form of sandpaper, chiefly used in carpentry (not back-scrubbing) before the modern era.
That reminds me - I've never checked to see if there is any date known for its first introduction to Europe.
PS I have to agree with you that there appears to be no interest in animal products, and that the item directly below that block I identified as wrapped indigo (thanks for liking the id), is formed as an eastern pennon or flag, and is dark blue, and has a label most of which is formed by the same 'vord' as that written by the block. Colour-form-historical documentation etc. I stand by the analysis and conclusion on that one. Others of course may be able to provide an alternative analysis, historical documentation and so forth. But no-one has yet, I think.
RE: About the products - -JKP- - 17-09-2016
I sometimes refer to roots or leaves for my own personal notes, but in a general forum that might not be a good idea because even the root/leaf dichotomy is an assumption.
For general reference, I like to call the two sections "large plants" and "small plants" (with reference to the size of the drawings, not the plants themselves).