12-11-2025, 02:28 PM
It's getting funnier and funnier
The f needs a crossbar to distinguish it from the s and the l. I'm not sure if you want to question that too, but never mind.
In the picture, you can clearly see this crossbar, even if it is a little too big, but he also wrote very small. You can follow the trace exactly and even see where he lifted the pen, blue arrow.
But of course, one can always assume that it is a smudge; anything in such small writing can be a smudge. At this level, there is no need to discuss it further, I realise that – see below.
The c was also discussed here in the thread itself. What else can I say about it? I honestly find it difficult.
The same goes for the A. If you are unable to recognise that this is a glyph in the shape of an A, I am not surprised that you have given up hope of deciphering the Voynich text.
No, no one doubts that the 3 is a brevigraph for an m, and no one doubts that a macron indicates an omitted letter. That would turn the entire history of the Latin language upside down. At most, one can doubt whether this is a 3 or a macron. But I didn't write that. Of course, one can doubt everything, even doubts.
But honestly, I don't want to continue this discussion at this level. I had actually hoped that this forum would be different from the many forums on other topics. But it's no different after all, which is a shame. I was looking forward to a constructive exchange, but in fact found only the usual stupid. And that doesn't just apply to this discussion.
The only logical consequence for me: I'm out of here and won't be responding to any more posts; my time is too precious for that.
Farewell...
The f needs a crossbar to distinguish it from the s and the l. I'm not sure if you want to question that too, but never mind.
In the picture, you can clearly see this crossbar, even if it is a little too big, but he also wrote very small. You can follow the trace exactly and even see where he lifted the pen, blue arrow.
But of course, one can always assume that it is a smudge; anything in such small writing can be a smudge. At this level, there is no need to discuss it further, I realise that – see below.
The c was also discussed here in the thread itself. What else can I say about it? I honestly find it difficult.
The same goes for the A. If you are unable to recognise that this is a glyph in the shape of an A, I am not surprised that you have given up hope of deciphering the Voynich text.
No, no one doubts that the 3 is a brevigraph for an m, and no one doubts that a macron indicates an omitted letter. That would turn the entire history of the Latin language upside down. At most, one can doubt whether this is a 3 or a macron. But I didn't write that. Of course, one can doubt everything, even doubts.
But honestly, I don't want to continue this discussion at this level. I had actually hoped that this forum would be different from the many forums on other topics. But it's no different after all, which is a shame. I was looking forward to a constructive exchange, but in fact found only the usual stupid. And that doesn't just apply to this discussion.
The only logical consequence for me: I'm out of here and won't be responding to any more posts; my time is too precious for that.
Farewell...