07-10-2020, 06:23 AM
For those forum members who are still following this thread, I would like to provide a brief update on my progress with the Sorbian theory of the Voynich manuscript text.
The following are lines 17-20 on Voynich ms folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , the first page of quire 13, the "bathing women" or balneological or biological section of the ms. This excerpt is part of the much longer passage, the first 26 lines of page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , that I rendered into my "Slavic VCI" reading/interpretation of the Voynich script in previous posts in this thread.
<Přecal žePř# sžecal#> <cas žas ž# tz rjec# nás>
<rz rjéc# ns rjec# ns> <bo jal ral z#>
<nrjec# ns že# n#> <že# pře# no al>
<l# že# nw je# še# sch> <#co že# no>
The vord sequence "<že# n->" fits quite well as forms of the root "žena", the word for "woman" found quite widely across Slavic languages.
The glyph sequence "<pře>/<př>" fits well as forms of the West Slavic prepositions and prefixes "pře", "při", "přez", "před".
The vord "<nas>/<ns>" fits well as the Slavic form "nas", meaning "us" (accusative case).
I had been bothered by the vord sequence "<rjec# nas>/<rjec# ns>", since the West Slavic verbs such as Sorbian "rjec", "rěčeć", meaning "speak, say, talk, tell", should take the dative case, not the accusative case: If this sequence had the meaning "tell us", the object "us" should be in the dative case as "nam", not in the accusative case as "nas".
Now I find a much better interpretation, both grammatically and semantically: Sorbian has a verb "rjedźić", meaning "to clean, to cleanse, to purify, to clear". It should take an object in the accusative case, not the dative case.
Not only does the interpretation of "<rjec# nas>/<rjec# ns>" as a Sorbian phrase meaning "cleanse us" work grammatically, it also fits quite well semantically with the illustrations of bathing women on this page and throughout this section of the manuscript.
Geoffrey
The following are lines 17-20 on Voynich ms folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , the first page of quire 13, the "bathing women" or balneological or biological section of the ms. This excerpt is part of the much longer passage, the first 26 lines of page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , that I rendered into my "Slavic VCI" reading/interpretation of the Voynich script in previous posts in this thread.
<Přecal žePř# sžecal#> <cas žas ž# tz rjec# nás>
<rz rjéc# ns rjec# ns> <bo jal ral z#>
<nrjec# ns že# n#> <že# pře# no al>
<l# že# nw je# še# sch> <#co že# no>
The vord sequence "<že# n->" fits quite well as forms of the root "žena", the word for "woman" found quite widely across Slavic languages.
The glyph sequence "<pře>/<př>" fits well as forms of the West Slavic prepositions and prefixes "pře", "při", "přez", "před".
The vord "<nas>/<ns>" fits well as the Slavic form "nas", meaning "us" (accusative case).
I had been bothered by the vord sequence "<rjec# nas>/<rjec# ns>", since the West Slavic verbs such as Sorbian "rjec", "rěčeć", meaning "speak, say, talk, tell", should take the dative case, not the accusative case: If this sequence had the meaning "tell us", the object "us" should be in the dative case as "nam", not in the accusative case as "nas".
Now I find a much better interpretation, both grammatically and semantically: Sorbian has a verb "rjedźić", meaning "to clean, to cleanse, to purify, to clear". It should take an object in the accusative case, not the dative case.
Not only does the interpretation of "<rjec# nas>/<rjec# ns>" as a Sorbian phrase meaning "cleanse us" work grammatically, it also fits quite well semantically with the illustrations of bathing women on this page and throughout this section of the manuscript.
Geoffrey