Voynich Welsh Numerology

[-JKP-]

Stellar, I think you completely missed my point.

I known all about Orion, Pleiades, etc. I'm quite familiar with the constellations... I can identify many of them on sight, and have a fairly good quality telescope to view them.


What I'm saying, (besides the fact that there are other ways to interpret seven stars) is that you assigned a different VMS word token to Taurus than other people who have gone down this same road and you imposed the "4" glyph on the letter "a".

So, to support your assertions:

1. You need to justify why you turned the "a" into a "4", otherwise people might think you did so to make your numbers come out the way you want them.
   
2. You need to explain why you disagree with the labels assigned by previous researchers and switched them around.
   

You and I are not the scribe and in fact people have even miss interpreted plain language like old Hebrew and Aramaic translations of the Bible.  The fact is I see a 4 and I know its tail is barely visible yet the slopes do not resemble a voynich letter, "a".  I did find Aldebaran and Tauros using my numerology method.  The cluster picture for Pleiade is similar and so I'm asserting its a 4.  I disagree with Stephen Bax's work and his interpretations yet he does assert this section to be Taurus and believes the glyph we are debating on is a voynich letter, "a".

see attachment:

Stellar, you can't just go by the shape when it's within something like a wheel where the scribe is continually turning the page to try to write in the correct direction. There are more malformed (but still recognizable) shapes in the circular drawings than anywhere else. If you examine them closely, some are almost sideways (I've noticed the scribe was reluctant to rotate the page until absolutely necessary).


So, you have to examine context as well. I think it looks more like an "a" than a "4" but I would not base my assertion simply on that. You also have to study the script as a whole and see where, why, and how, and with what the "4" is usually written. The context is wrong compared to all the other "4" glyphs in the manuscript, but it fits well with the usual context of the "a", so the evidence, if you stop cherry-picking and start looking at the manuscript in its entirety, is stronger in the direction of "a" than "4".