(29-03-2019, 05:45 AM)Morten St. George wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Know that I view the majority of the depicted plants as fake, that is, as imagined plants rather than as real plants, though surely the artists derived elements from memory of plants they had seen. This explains why the sunflower may be only partially accurate in its depiction.
Likewise, the text accompanying the plant drawings may also be fake, that is, meaningless text compiled by random extractions of tokens from the "starred" pages, namely You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the epistula) for Language A and from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the liber) for Language B. You claim to be an expert on VMS text and are presumably in possession of a large amount of data on it, so you tell me whether or not such a thing is possible.
I don't think the plants are fake. Some are quite naturalistic and identifiable. Some are very stylized, but this might be for mnemonic reasons. I would not write them off as fake plants. They are probably just drawn in a way that is culturally and mnemonically meaningful to whoever drew them.
There is no proof that there is a "sunflower" in the VMS. There are a number of plants that look like the VMS "sunflower" that are not part of the sunflower family.
The text accompanying the plants might be meaningless. Or it might be in a system that isn't yet understood. I would not assume it's meaningless until we have explored all the possible ways the text could be constructed, and that is work in progress.