19-08-2017, 06:12 PM
Hmmm,
the difference of meaning between sch(a)edula and schaedata doesn't seem fundamental to me.
Barschius submitted *something* and it would have been something drawn or written on paper.
On top of that, nobody knows if this submission was related to the Voynich MS, and it also does not
really matter to much.
Now what does it really say.
No problem with the other assessments, but I really can't agree with this.
The 'e' or 'ae' somehow looks like an amendment, because Marci's 'ae' are quite consistent and easily recognisable. It could be either.
The 'a' or 'u' before the last consonant probably cannot be decided by itself. His 'u' is usually open at the top, but there are cases where this is less so.
Marci's 'l' basically *never* connects to the previous letter, and always starts at the top. Sometimes with a small loop.
The only case when it connects to the left seems to be when it is the second 'l' in a pair, e.g. 'illud'.
His 't' on the other hand has significant variety, and it does not always connect to the right from the middle.
The 't' in Ratisbona in the first line is a good example for comparison.
Mind you, I don't wish to argue that it makes a great difference, as I said before.
And it could be that this is the only 'l' that looks like this, but I just want to point out that the case is not clear and the evidence very thin.
the difference of meaning between sch(a)edula and schaedata doesn't seem fundamental to me.
Barschius submitted *something* and it would have been something drawn or written on paper.
On top of that, nobody knows if this submission was related to the Voynich MS, and it also does not
really matter to much.
Now what does it really say.
(19-08-2017, 04:42 PM)Helmut Winkler wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, it seems to be a pretty good idea to have a look at the originals of the 17th. c. letters, something I have never done, being not really interested in the life of the ms. after 1450.
[...] And I think schedula is correct, the strange epsilon-looking letter is an e with a cedille, common at the time for ae. The second last letter is l, Marci in his t‘s always makes a connection from the middle of the letter to the next letter. [...]
No problem with the other assessments, but I really can't agree with this.
The 'e' or 'ae' somehow looks like an amendment, because Marci's 'ae' are quite consistent and easily recognisable. It could be either.
The 'a' or 'u' before the last consonant probably cannot be decided by itself. His 'u' is usually open at the top, but there are cases where this is less so.
Marci's 'l' basically *never* connects to the previous letter, and always starts at the top. Sometimes with a small loop.
The only case when it connects to the left seems to be when it is the second 'l' in a pair, e.g. 'illud'.
His 't' on the other hand has significant variety, and it does not always connect to the right from the middle.
The 't' in Ratisbona in the first line is a good example for comparison.
Mind you, I don't wish to argue that it makes a great difference, as I said before.
And it could be that this is the only 'l' that looks like this, but I just want to point out that the case is not clear and the evidence very thin.