Hi Don
Let me use this thread to provide my impression of your proposals in general. I think you have three qualities that set you apart from many other researchers:
1) You are always civil and open to discuss everything, staying to the point.
2) You have a very good eye for spotting images and patterns in the drawings that might have a symbolical meaning.
3) You take the structure of Voynichese into account. This is all too often absent from explanations.
Now the problem for me personally with your mnemonic-text links is the following. I have spent countless hours looking into the "art history" side of the VM images, and the more I find, the more I agree with Diane that they originated well before the time the manuscript was made. In other words, the images were directly copied from older sources. There are various cultural influences present, but those lie a large distance east and/or south of England.
This would take several books to explain, but it is clear to me that the images in the manuscript cannot have been made by a medieval English speaker. I would need very strong art-historical arguments to convince me of the contrary, because I consider the evidence in favor of a Hellenistic origin very strong.
Your theory about the text and the mnemonics would imply that they were created by the same person, who spoke at least 15th century English. So for me it is clear that either:
- The text is not in any form of English.
OR
- The text is not related to the images - a 15th century text has been placed with unrelated ancient imagery.
I believe there are at least some arguments that the text does belong with the imagery, so I have to stick with the hypothesis that English was extremely unlikely to have played any role in the composition of the manuscript or its sources.
You have clearly trained your eye in spotting significant mnemonics, which is a skill all in its own. But I don't agree with the way you interpret the intention behind those mnemonics.
Edit: I must also add that the way you approach the language is a very good example that an "alternative approach" can work. I just don't agree with the cultural background, but I find the concept very interesting and well executed.
Let me use this thread to provide my impression of your proposals in general. I think you have three qualities that set you apart from many other researchers:
1) You are always civil and open to discuss everything, staying to the point.
2) You have a very good eye for spotting images and patterns in the drawings that might have a symbolical meaning.
3) You take the structure of Voynichese into account. This is all too often absent from explanations.
Now the problem for me personally with your mnemonic-text links is the following. I have spent countless hours looking into the "art history" side of the VM images, and the more I find, the more I agree with Diane that they originated well before the time the manuscript was made. In other words, the images were directly copied from older sources. There are various cultural influences present, but those lie a large distance east and/or south of England.
This would take several books to explain, but it is clear to me that the images in the manuscript cannot have been made by a medieval English speaker. I would need very strong art-historical arguments to convince me of the contrary, because I consider the evidence in favor of a Hellenistic origin very strong.
Your theory about the text and the mnemonics would imply that they were created by the same person, who spoke at least 15th century English. So for me it is clear that either:
- The text is not in any form of English.
OR
- The text is not related to the images - a 15th century text has been placed with unrelated ancient imagery.
I believe there are at least some arguments that the text does belong with the imagery, so I have to stick with the hypothesis that English was extremely unlikely to have played any role in the composition of the manuscript or its sources.
You have clearly trained your eye in spotting significant mnemonics, which is a skill all in its own. But I don't agree with the way you interpret the intention behind those mnemonics.
Edit: I must also add that the way you approach the language is a very good example that an "alternative approach" can work. I just don't agree with the cultural background, but I find the concept very interesting and well executed.