31-12-2025, 02:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 31-12-2025, 02:27 AM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
The 4 x 17 hallucinations!
From f57v:
This image is a mosaic of clips from page f57v, notable for the sequence 17 signs repeated 4 times in text ring R2 (second from outside in). Some of these signs look like normal Voynichese glyphs, including the v and the "picnic table" x, which are rare elsewhere. Some occur only here, in R2 and possibly in other text rings.
At least three layers of tracing and retracing are visible on this page. The original traces (Rt0) are extremely faint, and may have entirely vanished from some places. See (A1,B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6) below. The general restoration pass Rt1 retraced practically all the text and good part of the figure outlines,with light grayish ink. See (J1,J2) below. Another pass, Rt2, retouched only some strokes and bits of outline, with significantly darker ink. See (Q1,Q2,Q3) below.
It has long been observed that the repetition of the 17 signs in R2 is not exact: some copies of some signs differ from one set of 17 to the next one. See (B3,S1,S2,S3,K1,K2) Those differences could all be explained by mistakes of the Retracers.
In the image, rows 1-4 are the four sets of 17 signs in ring R2, copied clockwise from the o immediately after the wide gap and double radial line at ~10:30. The last row has some glyphs from other rings, mainly R3 and R4, and a bit of the arm of the S "angel" (clip 79). The signs were all rotated so that the radial direction on the page is vertical on the image.
(A1) Typical Rt0 trace.
(B1) Incomplete retracing of Rt0 tail by Rt1/Rt2. (B2) This mini-y is Rt1, except the distal part of the tail which is Rt0. (B3) This "claw" weirdo is Rt1 except for a very faint Rt0 line between the "wrist" and the "thumbnail", which is invisible in the other four copies (29,46,64,81). (B4) This d is Rt2, except for the NW part of the lowr loop which is Rt0. (B5) This y is Rt1, except the distal part of the tail which is Rt0. (B6) The Rt0 lower part of the weirdo's leg, practically invisible, was missed by Rt1 and Rt2.
(J1) Example of Rt1 retrace. (J2) Rt1 retraces, themselves quite faded.
(K1) This I is partly Rt1 (the @i stroke) and partly Rt2 (ligature). It is not clear whether it was I or C in Rt0. (K2) The Rt0 of this glyph may have been either I or C, but was mangled by Rt1 into "neither". (K3) Unidentifiable glyph mangled by Rt1. (K4) An a mangled by Rt1.
(Q1,Q2) Examples of Rt2 traces. (Q3) The whole glyph was retraced by Rt2, slowly, probably clockwise on the plume.
(P1) This o is half Rt1, half Rt2. (P2) This o is Rt1 with a small bit of Rt2 at SSE. (P3) Each of these x is Rt1 except for the W leg that is Rt2.
(R1,R2) Each of these r was Rt1 but then the distal half of the plume was retraced (clockwise) by Rt2. (R3) This r was Rt1 but then the lower half of the body (imperfectly) and the distal half of the plume (clockwise) were retraced by Rt2. (R4) The r was retraced by Rt1, probably with only half the plume, looking like an I. Then Rt2 supplied a silly stub (clockwise) for the missing half of the plume.
(S1) This d was turned into a j by Rt2 (and maybe Rt1). (S2) These two loops are Rt2, and may not have existed in Rt0. (S3) Rt2 mangled this weirdo by inserting an extra loop where there was a sharp 90° corner and turning the last loop into a separate closed curve.
As usual, assume "I think that" or "My best guess is that" before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi
From f57v:
This image is a mosaic of clips from page f57v, notable for the sequence 17 signs repeated 4 times in text ring R2 (second from outside in). Some of these signs look like normal Voynichese glyphs, including the v and the "picnic table" x, which are rare elsewhere. Some occur only here, in R2 and possibly in other text rings.
At least three layers of tracing and retracing are visible on this page. The original traces (Rt0) are extremely faint, and may have entirely vanished from some places. See (A1,B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6) below. The general restoration pass Rt1 retraced practically all the text and good part of the figure outlines,with light grayish ink. See (J1,J2) below. Another pass, Rt2, retouched only some strokes and bits of outline, with significantly darker ink. See (Q1,Q2,Q3) below.
It has long been observed that the repetition of the 17 signs in R2 is not exact: some copies of some signs differ from one set of 17 to the next one. See (B3,S1,S2,S3,K1,K2) Those differences could all be explained by mistakes of the Retracers.
In the image, rows 1-4 are the four sets of 17 signs in ring R2, copied clockwise from the o immediately after the wide gap and double radial line at ~10:30. The last row has some glyphs from other rings, mainly R3 and R4, and a bit of the arm of the S "angel" (clip 79). The signs were all rotated so that the radial direction on the page is vertical on the image.
(A1) Typical Rt0 trace.
(B1) Incomplete retracing of Rt0 tail by Rt1/Rt2. (B2) This mini-y is Rt1, except the distal part of the tail which is Rt0. (B3) This "claw" weirdo is Rt1 except for a very faint Rt0 line between the "wrist" and the "thumbnail", which is invisible in the other four copies (29,46,64,81). (B4) This d is Rt2, except for the NW part of the lowr loop which is Rt0. (B5) This y is Rt1, except the distal part of the tail which is Rt0. (B6) The Rt0 lower part of the weirdo's leg, practically invisible, was missed by Rt1 and Rt2.
(J1) Example of Rt1 retrace. (J2) Rt1 retraces, themselves quite faded.
(K1) This I is partly Rt1 (the @i stroke) and partly Rt2 (ligature). It is not clear whether it was I or C in Rt0. (K2) The Rt0 of this glyph may have been either I or C, but was mangled by Rt1 into "neither". (K3) Unidentifiable glyph mangled by Rt1. (K4) An a mangled by Rt1.
(Q1,Q2) Examples of Rt2 traces. (Q3) The whole glyph was retraced by Rt2, slowly, probably clockwise on the plume.
(P1) This o is half Rt1, half Rt2. (P2) This o is Rt1 with a small bit of Rt2 at SSE. (P3) Each of these x is Rt1 except for the W leg that is Rt2.
(R1,R2) Each of these r was Rt1 but then the distal half of the plume was retraced (clockwise) by Rt2. (R3) This r was Rt1 but then the lower half of the body (imperfectly) and the distal half of the plume (clockwise) were retraced by Rt2. (R4) The r was retraced by Rt1, probably with only half the plume, looking like an I. Then Rt2 supplied a silly stub (clockwise) for the missing half of the plume.
(S1) This d was turned into a j by Rt2 (and maybe Rt1). (S2) These two loops are Rt2, and may not have existed in Rt0. (S3) Rt2 mangled this weirdo by inserting an extra loop where there was a sharp 90° corner and turning the last loop into a separate closed curve.
As usual, assume "I think that" or "My best guess is that" before each claim above.
All the best, --stolfi