04-08-2016, 05:15 PM
To be more serious, I offer the following observations.
It looks like some of my proposed herb image attributions can be checked for appropriateness if the following possibilities can be accepted:
1. The image has some relationship with the text.
2. The relationship to the image is shown on the same page as the text that is related to it.
3. The image was drawn in such a way as to reveal its information in some way to the reader while disguising it from those not in on the secret of how to understand that relationship. (There are subterfuges in the Voynich Manuscript - can you believe it?)
4. There seem to be parts of the images that are not normally in other images of plants from the Fifteenth Century. These include animals, faces and other cryptic things. There are other images, such as snakes/worms in the roots, for which a relationship can be directly traced to other images of or before the Fifteenth Century. This relationship usually is of the mnemonic or rebus type.
5. The unexplained other parts probably also apply in some way to whatever is being written about in the text or to the plant images.
6. There seems to be no other normal explanation for these other images in relation to the plant images on the pages.
7. There are snakes/worms in the roots of one of the plant images in the VMS.
8. It might mean the image on the VMS page is of bistort, as it does in many other period (or before) herbals.
9. If that image of snakes/worms is germane to the image on the page, maybe other unexplained side images on plant image pages can also be used to help identify the plants on those pages.
10. If true, it might mean that the other additional image parts might also actually be directly related to the main image and text on their pages.
11. Using my proposed deconstruction scheme, the code group tables, the universally used phonetic sound alphabet and the code attributions/abbreviations, I have come up with a series of plant image identifications that are represented on the pages as I have been showing.
12. Almost all of the page image leaves seem to have very close resemblances to leaves on plant images from other sources. There are, on some plants imaged in the VMS, other points of similarity with those from other sources.
13. The other plant parts such as roots and flowers seem often to be imaginary or deliberately composed as other than real depictions. I think these are part of the subterfuges found throughout the VMS. The leaves seem to be the most constant identifying feature.
14. If each plant image page seems to have a Code I attribution that is shown on the page (usually in a word in the top line or the left side of the page or up against the plant image), it might be possible that the other image parts are also directly related to the Code I attribution, either as rebuses or mnemonics or other word play.
15. The herb identified for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is pipperidge, also known as bearberry. The code for pipperidge is sounded as prg in VMS glyphs. It is found as the first three glyphs in the 1st paragraph, 1st line, 5th word. The code seems logical to me, as do most of the other codes. The word is prominently positioned on the page. It would be an easy word for a reader to notice when looking for the page image identity. The word, pipperidge, is appropriate to the Fifteenth Century in England. The leaves drawn on the page resemble those of pipperidge/bearberry.
16. The image of a bear on the page would serve as an easy mnemonic reminder of the bearberry/pipperidge attribution. The leaves shown on the page are not easily differentiated from other, similar leaves, thus an additional aid to memory/recognition was deemed necessary.
The same sort of thing goes on throughout the identifications I think I have made.
That's why I think it is pipperidge/bearberry.
I think there is a code attribution and a mnemonic device that both seem to agree with the image on the page. The leaves are similar.
And the code attribution is positioned right in the middle of the top line on the page for easy recognition. (I've noticed there only seems to be one use of the image's Code I code on each of the plant image pages).
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
It looks like some of my proposed herb image attributions can be checked for appropriateness if the following possibilities can be accepted:
1. The image has some relationship with the text.
2. The relationship to the image is shown on the same page as the text that is related to it.
3. The image was drawn in such a way as to reveal its information in some way to the reader while disguising it from those not in on the secret of how to understand that relationship. (There are subterfuges in the Voynich Manuscript - can you believe it?)
4. There seem to be parts of the images that are not normally in other images of plants from the Fifteenth Century. These include animals, faces and other cryptic things. There are other images, such as snakes/worms in the roots, for which a relationship can be directly traced to other images of or before the Fifteenth Century. This relationship usually is of the mnemonic or rebus type.
5. The unexplained other parts probably also apply in some way to whatever is being written about in the text or to the plant images.
6. There seems to be no other normal explanation for these other images in relation to the plant images on the pages.
7. There are snakes/worms in the roots of one of the plant images in the VMS.
8. It might mean the image on the VMS page is of bistort, as it does in many other period (or before) herbals.
9. If that image of snakes/worms is germane to the image on the page, maybe other unexplained side images on plant image pages can also be used to help identify the plants on those pages.
10. If true, it might mean that the other additional image parts might also actually be directly related to the main image and text on their pages.
11. Using my proposed deconstruction scheme, the code group tables, the universally used phonetic sound alphabet and the code attributions/abbreviations, I have come up with a series of plant image identifications that are represented on the pages as I have been showing.
12. Almost all of the page image leaves seem to have very close resemblances to leaves on plant images from other sources. There are, on some plants imaged in the VMS, other points of similarity with those from other sources.
13. The other plant parts such as roots and flowers seem often to be imaginary or deliberately composed as other than real depictions. I think these are part of the subterfuges found throughout the VMS. The leaves seem to be the most constant identifying feature.
14. If each plant image page seems to have a Code I attribution that is shown on the page (usually in a word in the top line or the left side of the page or up against the plant image), it might be possible that the other image parts are also directly related to the Code I attribution, either as rebuses or mnemonics or other word play.
15. The herb identified for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is pipperidge, also known as bearberry. The code for pipperidge is sounded as prg in VMS glyphs. It is found as the first three glyphs in the 1st paragraph, 1st line, 5th word. The code seems logical to me, as do most of the other codes. The word is prominently positioned on the page. It would be an easy word for a reader to notice when looking for the page image identity. The word, pipperidge, is appropriate to the Fifteenth Century in England. The leaves drawn on the page resemble those of pipperidge/bearberry.
16. The image of a bear on the page would serve as an easy mnemonic reminder of the bearberry/pipperidge attribution. The leaves shown on the page are not easily differentiated from other, similar leaves, thus an additional aid to memory/recognition was deemed necessary.
The same sort of thing goes on throughout the identifications I think I have made.
That's why I think it is pipperidge/bearberry.
I think there is a code attribution and a mnemonic device that both seem to agree with the image on the page. The leaves are similar.
And the code attribution is positioned right in the middle of the top line on the page for easy recognition. (I've noticed there only seems to be one use of the image's Code I code on each of the plant image pages).
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee