09-04-2016, 11:40 AM
Koen Gh,
I think ReneZ's suggestion above was going in the same direction as MarcoP's on the other thread.
You are rather demanding regarding the evidence that others offer, and challenge them to produce perfect matches and detailed examples for everything they claim. I personally enjoy your challenges because they push me to delve more deeply.
But obviously then, it is only fair that people on this forum will expect you to apply the same standard to your own suggestions: if you want to be convincing, you can't just say Byzantium (or anywhere) makes a fine choice the Voynich source material or for the root and leaf section format, just because it was multicultural and had a lot of trade.
Specifically: you're going to have to show us Byzantine manuscripts with containers and roots and leaves set up like that, and manuscripts that use leaf or root shapes evoking Greek legends as mnemonic devices in plants.
I have nothing against any origin theory about the Voynich, but it is always when we get down to specifics, providing examples and explaining transmission and historical continuity that things get more difficult. In Voynich studies as in life, some people can't stand that and take offence when they are challenged, and that's a shame: challenges make us better.
ReneZ,
The problem with Singer is that it's not at all clear that he had even seen the Voynich when he made that description, based on the evidence unearthed by Rich SantaColoma You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Of course, that doesn't detract from the interest of the idea of archei, (or similar), being possibly featured in the balneo section.
I think ReneZ's suggestion above was going in the same direction as MarcoP's on the other thread.
You are rather demanding regarding the evidence that others offer, and challenge them to produce perfect matches and detailed examples for everything they claim. I personally enjoy your challenges because they push me to delve more deeply.
But obviously then, it is only fair that people on this forum will expect you to apply the same standard to your own suggestions: if you want to be convincing, you can't just say Byzantium (or anywhere) makes a fine choice the Voynich source material or for the root and leaf section format, just because it was multicultural and had a lot of trade.
Specifically: you're going to have to show us Byzantine manuscripts with containers and roots and leaves set up like that, and manuscripts that use leaf or root shapes evoking Greek legends as mnemonic devices in plants.
I have nothing against any origin theory about the Voynich, but it is always when we get down to specifics, providing examples and explaining transmission and historical continuity that things get more difficult. In Voynich studies as in life, some people can't stand that and take offence when they are challenged, and that's a shame: challenges make us better.
ReneZ,
The problem with Singer is that it's not at all clear that he had even seen the Voynich when he made that description, based on the evidence unearthed by Rich SantaColoma You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Of course, that doesn't detract from the interest of the idea of archei, (or similar), being possibly featured in the balneo section.