17-12-2017, 05:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-12-2017, 05:45 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: add image
)
Rene
You may have given details before, but would you mind giving more details for
I find this very interesting, and only wish that when I argued, with my evidence, for reading the two browsing creatures as goats that someone had thought to mention it then. As it was - and as you may remember - the only overt reaction I received was emphatic disbelief and (as I recall) assertions that I suffered from hallucinations.
Do please give details of the two persons who had earlier come to the same conclusion - though I think they have misread as 'dew claws' what the draftsman working to that tiny scale had meant to be the bone(?) above the pastern.
![[Image: 4709981_orig.png]](https://livestockjudging404.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/9/6/25966179/4709981_orig.png)
Saying there's "no doubt that the maker added the detail intentionally" is one of those remarks which regularly brings down negative comment, as I've found. But I've also found that if you treat the question as if it were 'How do you know?' and answer that question in as much detail, with as much corroborative information as possible, the criticism is lessened.
A link to Pamela Richards' original comment would be much appreciated.
You may have given details before, but would you mind giving more details for
Quote:From memory, the main argument of Pamela Richards why the Aries animals in the Voynich MS look more like goats, was the presence of 'dew claws'. It could also have been someone else's argument (Stolfi's ?).
I find this very interesting, and only wish that when I argued, with my evidence, for reading the two browsing creatures as goats that someone had thought to mention it then. As it was - and as you may remember - the only overt reaction I received was emphatic disbelief and (as I recall) assertions that I suffered from hallucinations.
Do please give details of the two persons who had earlier come to the same conclusion - though I think they have misread as 'dew claws' what the draftsman working to that tiny scale had meant to be the bone(?) above the pastern.
Saying there's "no doubt that the maker added the detail intentionally" is one of those remarks which regularly brings down negative comment, as I've found. But I've also found that if you treat the question as if it were 'How do you know?' and answer that question in as much detail, with as much corroborative information as possible, the criticism is lessened.
A link to Pamela Richards' original comment would be much appreciated.