(28-04-2016, 09:58 AM)Searcher wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) otol - omnius (neutrum genus), nepos (masculine), nubens (fem., mascul., neutr.)
...
As for me, the text is enigmatic and strange, but coherent in the whole manuscript.
You have to ask yourself, if it can be this many interpretations, is the person choosing the interpretation the one who is creating coherency in the manuscript?
Let's say in English you have the common endings -ing -able -ly or -ed. If you add a few letters in front of them, many will become real words.
I'm afraid I don't see coherency yet (I'm willing to keep looking and to keep an open mind about this)...
As I mentioned, folio 1v has been translated into a dozen disjointed unrelated subjects with no consistent or coherent (or even note-form) grammar other than those we human beings "fill in" with our minds when we see familiar words. How many of the abbreviation+more-letters combinations look like words because the expansion of the abbreviations is already providing the foundation for a word so that anything you add to it with a basic vowel-consonant balance has a good chance of matching some word in Latin?
I'm not posing these questions to be argumentative. These are things we all have to ask ourselves when we have something the LOOKS like words but which otherwise doesn't make a lot of sense and which requires alternatives for many of the word-glyphs in order to try to make sense of it.