29-08-2016, 02:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-08-2016, 02:27 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: addition
)
Searcher - you are absolutely right about the 'tiger' also being represented as a dark blue creature, and as you see from the picture below, both might be depicted in very similar ways. Memory failed in this case. It is the "tiger" which is linked to the story of the glass ball.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rene is of course entitled to believe that comparisons are arbitrary, but that's a luxury one can hardly afford when a client's money is at issue. It may be to one's taste that a picture should be by Rembrandt, but if it's by a minor Dutch master, taste is of less relevance than accuracy, and a difference which may be small can have great significance.
In this case, I agree with Koen and Sam G. that the protruding tongue and association with the 'palm' (which has been misinterpreted here, I think as the "tuft of the tail") is also highly significant. A creature with a spotted hide, round ears and no mane cannot be made a lion because it better suits our personal aesthetic, can it?
Postscript: I feel it would not be honest to omit mentioning that within Leo is an important formation known as the "tuft of the tail". I don't think that reference was part of the original image, but by the time the forms that we now have reached their present form (more than 16 centuries, I'd say after their first enunciation), the last users might have had that in mind. Another reference to a star is found in the "angel with the wand", and here it is fairly obvious that the original form which is found in an early Hellenistic medallion - of which the Voynich image is jolly near an exact copy - at some time had the original shield translated into the form of a star, an equation which makes sense if we assume that 'translation' made by a speaker of a semitic language, in which the words for shield and star are the same.
more TMI, I expect.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rene is of course entitled to believe that comparisons are arbitrary, but that's a luxury one can hardly afford when a client's money is at issue. It may be to one's taste that a picture should be by Rembrandt, but if it's by a minor Dutch master, taste is of less relevance than accuracy, and a difference which may be small can have great significance.
In this case, I agree with Koen and Sam G. that the protruding tongue and association with the 'palm' (which has been misinterpreted here, I think as the "tuft of the tail") is also highly significant. A creature with a spotted hide, round ears and no mane cannot be made a lion because it better suits our personal aesthetic, can it?
Postscript: I feel it would not be honest to omit mentioning that within Leo is an important formation known as the "tuft of the tail". I don't think that reference was part of the original image, but by the time the forms that we now have reached their present form (more than 16 centuries, I'd say after their first enunciation), the last users might have had that in mind. Another reference to a star is found in the "angel with the wand", and here it is fairly obvious that the original form which is found in an early Hellenistic medallion - of which the Voynich image is jolly near an exact copy - at some time had the original shield translated into the form of a star, an equation which makes sense if we assume that 'translation' made by a speaker of a semitic language, in which the words for shield and star are the same.
more TMI, I expect.