18-11-2016, 09:12 AM
I use the term "gallows" because to me it doesn't mean anything. I mean, it doesn't steer one's interpretation. So it's as good a name as any.
Even though I believe them to be a bit like capitals, a term like "capitals" would be worse because this foregrounds one well understood aspect of writing.
Rene: I know the original terms were never meant to convey consensus. I also know that when people like us use the terms, we understand that they are just names, nothing more.
But there are plenty of other people reading our messages, and they may not know these things. There are generations of future Voynich researchers who could benefit from more descriptive names.
Additionally, I had noticed that a number of different people were starting to feel uncomfortable using names like "pharma section" and "biological section". So I'm hoping we can channel this into a positive change.
We don't want to change just to break with tradition. For example, I personally see no problem with a term like "cosmological section" since this section depicts heavenly bodies. The term feels descriptive rather than interpretative.
I have mixed feelings about the term "zodiac". On the one hand, the term is easy and we all know what it refers to. On the other, I believe there are other reasonable interpretations for this section. A number of constellations of the ecliptic don't have to be interpreted as a zodiac sequence.
In the current form, it seems reasonable that the figures were meant to represent the constellations on the ecliptic. But that does not mean that they were actually seen or used as the signs of the Zodiac (= astrology). But I guess it comes down to the definition of "zodiac" one uses.
Even though I believe them to be a bit like capitals, a term like "capitals" would be worse because this foregrounds one well understood aspect of writing.
Rene: I know the original terms were never meant to convey consensus. I also know that when people like us use the terms, we understand that they are just names, nothing more.
But there are plenty of other people reading our messages, and they may not know these things. There are generations of future Voynich researchers who could benefit from more descriptive names.
Additionally, I had noticed that a number of different people were starting to feel uncomfortable using names like "pharma section" and "biological section". So I'm hoping we can channel this into a positive change.
We don't want to change just to break with tradition. For example, I personally see no problem with a term like "cosmological section" since this section depicts heavenly bodies. The term feels descriptive rather than interpretative.
I have mixed feelings about the term "zodiac". On the one hand, the term is easy and we all know what it refers to. On the other, I believe there are other reasonable interpretations for this section. A number of constellations of the ecliptic don't have to be interpreted as a zodiac sequence.
In the current form, it seems reasonable that the figures were meant to represent the constellations on the ecliptic. But that does not mean that they were actually seen or used as the signs of the Zodiac (= astrology). But I guess it comes down to the definition of "zodiac" one uses.