(21-08-2016, 01:40 AM)Diane wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The paired *beardless* goats which I used when explaining that the "Aries" weren't sheep, as they were always said to be before that was written....
Wrong: the Aries animals weren't always said to be sheep.
Google allows searching this kind of stuff to those genuinely interested in it. It's a boring activity, but it would be better to do a search before attributing an opinion to everybody who studied the manuscript before you. Or you could skip the tedious searching and just state your own opinion, without feeling the need to gratuitously revile everybody else's ideas.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Jorge Stolfi (2004) quoted this passage, written by Pamela Richards, I think.
> [Pam:] I think it was Dana Scott who called the two young
> animals, light and dark "goats". I am very inclined
> to agree. Sheep don't have dew claws....
Stolfi replied: "No dispute about them being goats."
I know of a voynichera who believes that you should take care about re-treading paths taken earlier by others. I think that re-treading the goat path is OK. If it is not abandoned, it could well be because it leads somewhere.
PS: I just tried David Jackson's "ML Archive" search here on voynich.ninja (thanks, David!).
Jorge Stolfi 1998:
the quality of the women drawings in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Aries light) is *much* worse than that of the sheep (goat?) at the center of the diagram.