Excuse me, but I would like to say something else.
Of course, it may be that a retracer thought he had a Latin sentence in front of him and, like us here, tried to find a solution. So he found a solution that seemed plausible to him and then ‘wrote’ this Latin sentence into the Voynich glyphs (which would explain a lot, the superscript P's and the Voynich T further back and other things).
But that doesn't interest me at all in this case. I was only interested in:
IF it is Latin, what is the most coherent translation? And that seems to have been misunderstood.
I came up with the sentence because I did exactly what one does with illegible passages, especially in old handwritten manuscripts
You look at the glyphs, divide them into those with ascenders and descenders, and insert variables, so to speak: the "l" could be an "l" or an s or an f, perhaps you can't see the belly, then you're left with b, d, k, p. Very simple mathematics. Variables, then check for coherence with the word and pay attention to the context.
The only thing I did differently was that I did it a little more consistently. Why wasn't "f" considered a possibility before? No idea.
Luc3: Since L has not yielded any results so far (9 years)
= Xuc3
I tested the usual suspects with X, including f (the f with a loop is verifiable).
Then I checked fuc3 as a possibility. I wasn't sure about the c, so I created a new variable:
= fuX3.
I ran through that and found, among other things: Furus (thieving) funus (corpse) fumus (smoke) futurus (future) fucus and also fusum. If you check that in context, Fumus (smoke) might have worked, but the m as a glyph is too far away. So that left Fucus / fusum.
And I proceeded in exactly the same way with ‘mulhier’. The h couldn't be an h, see 4th word, first letter. But then nothing came of it, so I used variables again. In the context of Fucus (very rarely propolis (bee resin) and fusum, Apiarius was then more likely again. And so on.
Conclusion: No eisegesis, just pure exegesis and logic.
And whether you like it or not:
If the sentence on 17r is Latin, the following translation is one of the most coherent translations you will find in the context of a recipe book.
m. Apiar' appar' fuc3 her'
Have a good time.
Of course, it may be that a retracer thought he had a Latin sentence in front of him and, like us here, tried to find a solution. So he found a solution that seemed plausible to him and then ‘wrote’ this Latin sentence into the Voynich glyphs (which would explain a lot, the superscript P's and the Voynich T further back and other things).
But that doesn't interest me at all in this case. I was only interested in:
IF it is Latin, what is the most coherent translation? And that seems to have been misunderstood.
I came up with the sentence because I did exactly what one does with illegible passages, especially in old handwritten manuscripts
You look at the glyphs, divide them into those with ascenders and descenders, and insert variables, so to speak: the "l" could be an "l" or an s or an f, perhaps you can't see the belly, then you're left with b, d, k, p. Very simple mathematics. Variables, then check for coherence with the word and pay attention to the context.
The only thing I did differently was that I did it a little more consistently. Why wasn't "f" considered a possibility before? No idea.
Luc3: Since L has not yielded any results so far (9 years)
= Xuc3
I tested the usual suspects with X, including f (the f with a loop is verifiable).
Then I checked fuc3 as a possibility. I wasn't sure about the c, so I created a new variable:
= fuX3.
I ran through that and found, among other things: Furus (thieving) funus (corpse) fumus (smoke) futurus (future) fucus and also fusum. If you check that in context, Fumus (smoke) might have worked, but the m as a glyph is too far away. So that left Fucus / fusum.
And I proceeded in exactly the same way with ‘mulhier’. The h couldn't be an h, see 4th word, first letter. But then nothing came of it, so I used variables again. In the context of Fucus (very rarely propolis (bee resin) and fusum, Apiarius was then more likely again. And so on.
Conclusion: No eisegesis, just pure exegesis and logic.
And whether you like it or not:
If the sentence on 17r is Latin, the following translation is one of the most coherent translations you will find in the context of a recipe book.
m. Apiar' appar' fuc3 her'
Have a good time.