25-08-2016, 12:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-08-2016, 12:56 AM by ChrisHagen.)
Hi Don - I think that I, in most cases, do see what you interpret as birds. I am however hard pressed to find much similarity between vague bird- or beak-like shapes in the leaves and the actual species that you are naming. I understand the hypothesis: the birds are a mnemonic device corresponding with a Voynichese word on the page which you then hypothesize could translate into a Middle English words that corresponds with the plant drawing. The hypothesis is also that the leaves are the main identifying part of the plant, and that the roots, flowers or other devices are either irrelevant or intentionally misleading.
I then have trouble understanding how the leaves can both be the mnemonic device (intentionally shaped into birds) but also the identifying part of the plant (at least somewhat botanically correct). It would seem more likely to me that, say, if the leaves are the identifying part, the mnemonic device would be in the roots or flowers.
Together with the extreme vagueness to the figures, which even if I squint only sometimes look like generic bird shapes, this makes me think that, while you must be on to something, is there a chance that you are doing things in the wrong order?
Are you using the possible reading of the words to identify the bird/plant, and then looking for ways to identify that bird/plant in the drawing? Because I'm afraid that could lead to some serious instances of "seeing what you want to see". It seems better to identify the bird/plant first, and then use that to deduce the Voynichese.
Maybe you've been doing it the right way all along, but I just thought I'd bring it up to make sure
I then have trouble understanding how the leaves can both be the mnemonic device (intentionally shaped into birds) but also the identifying part of the plant (at least somewhat botanically correct). It would seem more likely to me that, say, if the leaves are the identifying part, the mnemonic device would be in the roots or flowers.
Together with the extreme vagueness to the figures, which even if I squint only sometimes look like generic bird shapes, this makes me think that, while you must be on to something, is there a chance that you are doing things in the wrong order?
Are you using the possible reading of the words to identify the bird/plant, and then looking for ways to identify that bird/plant in the drawing? Because I'm afraid that could lead to some serious instances of "seeing what you want to see". It seems better to identify the bird/plant first, and then use that to deduce the Voynichese.
Maybe you've been doing it the right way all along, but I just thought I'd bring it up to make sure