@ Aga
realy? That is your defence?
All you do is make accusations and assertions—no evidence. That’s really very scientific!
But okay, you want a typical medieval recipe text. No problem. Let’s take the *Antidotarium Nicolai*. For centuries, this work was considered the standard pharmaceutical reference. It is a recipe book. It was originally compiled in the early 12th century and is attributed to Nicolaus Salernitanus.
In terms of content, it’s a collection of about 150 compound medicines. Typically, an entry consists of two parts: first, it describes the diseases or ailments the remedy is intended to treat, followed by the pharmaceutical instructions for preparation.
So, exactly what you asked for.
-atis 48 0,275 %
-ati 38 0,218 %
-itis 28 0,160 %
-utis 20 0,115 %
-eti 19 0,109 %
-iti 12 0,069 %
-uti 70, 040 %
-etis 40, 023 %
-oti 20, 011 %
-otis 00 %
Summe 178 = 1,019 % Off by a factor of 10!
The corpus is, of course, much smaller, but again, it’s 1%.
I don’t know, Aga, but honestly—your theory about “aiin” = uti / utis and variants is clearly refuted by this.
You probably have reservations now, too, but since you constantly emphasize the “scientific nature” of your work—from a purely scientific standpoint, it’s now up to you to find a text that reaches 10 percent.
Until then, your theory is considered refuted.
P.S.: Regarding your comments on my Bavarian theory. I'm not going to play along with these little kindergarden games. This thread is about your Latin theory, not my Bavarian one. You claimed that your Latin theory was obvious and scientifically provable—I simply said that it couldn’t be Latin, at which point you started attacking me fiercely. From that point on, I defended myself. Otherwise, I wouldn’t even be going to all this trouble here, because it’s really too obvious that it can’t be a substitution cipher in Latin. (Which everyone who has studied the VMS in any depth knows, except you.)
Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (The transcription i used is divided into two parts: Dutch and Latin. The Dutch section and other not latin descriptions were removed, leaving only the Latin text.)
realy? That is your defence?
All you do is make accusations and assertions—no evidence. That’s really very scientific!
But okay, you want a typical medieval recipe text. No problem. Let’s take the *Antidotarium Nicolai*. For centuries, this work was considered the standard pharmaceutical reference. It is a recipe book. It was originally compiled in the early 12th century and is attributed to Nicolaus Salernitanus.
In terms of content, it’s a collection of about 150 compound medicines. Typically, an entry consists of two parts: first, it describes the diseases or ailments the remedy is intended to treat, followed by the pharmaceutical instructions for preparation.
So, exactly what you asked for.
-atis 48 0,275 %
-ati 38 0,218 %
-itis 28 0,160 %
-utis 20 0,115 %
-eti 19 0,109 %
-iti 12 0,069 %
-uti 70, 040 %
-etis 40, 023 %
-oti 20, 011 %
-otis 00 %
Summe 178 = 1,019 % Off by a factor of 10!
The corpus is, of course, much smaller, but again, it’s 1%.
I don’t know, Aga, but honestly—your theory about “aiin” = uti / utis and variants is clearly refuted by this.
You probably have reservations now, too, but since you constantly emphasize the “scientific nature” of your work—from a purely scientific standpoint, it’s now up to you to find a text that reaches 10 percent.
Until then, your theory is considered refuted.
P.S.: Regarding your comments on my Bavarian theory. I'm not going to play along with these little kindergarden games. This thread is about your Latin theory, not my Bavarian one. You claimed that your Latin theory was obvious and scientifically provable—I simply said that it couldn’t be Latin, at which point you started attacking me fiercely. From that point on, I defended myself. Otherwise, I wouldn’t even be going to all this trouble here, because it’s really too obvious that it can’t be a substitution cipher in Latin. (Which everyone who has studied the VMS in any depth knows, except you.)
Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (The transcription i used is divided into two parts: Dutch and Latin. The Dutch section and other not latin descriptions were removed, leaving only the Latin text.)