15-05-2019, 10:13 AM
(This post was last modified: 15-05-2019, 10:15 AM by Mark Knowles.)
ReneZ: The question of transcription was not the purpose of my original question.
My question was to argue that we can associate visually the symbols from left of the "t" gallows with a "4" just as I would with the "4" in the "4o".
JKP: I can post pages and pages of examples here as there are pages and pages of t characters etc. However I was trying to establish a basic simple principle, that you disagree with, and without agreement on that principle any examples would be superfluous.
I think if we cannot say a letter is a latin letter "a", but merely consistent with it then does not that logic apply to all written symbols that are not in the Voynich.
My question was to argue that we can associate visually the symbols from left of the "t" gallows with a "4" just as I would with the "4" in the "4o".
JKP: I can post pages and pages of examples here as there are pages and pages of t characters etc. However I was trying to establish a basic simple principle, that you disagree with, and without agreement on that principle any examples would be superfluous.
I think if we cannot say a letter is a latin letter "a", but merely consistent with it then does not that logic apply to all written symbols that are not in the Voynich.