21-09-2026, 01:25 PM
This root can be identified by the small hairs that grow all over it.
The end of the root has a reddish tint when it is too young to harvest.
This root differs from other roots in the way that it connects to the stem.
These are all statements that would be useful in talking about a variety of roots on the same page. If the word root is removed none of it makes much since even if the page is full of roots. But in this case None of the folios in the Voynich display only roots. This would complicate the message for any of these statements. Are the leaves, stems, or roots covered with hairs. The word root is necessary to narrow the scope of the descriptions. But your point is taken and I agree. There may not be a word/symbol for root on a page full of roots.
The ms has a large amount of specific differences among its roots. It is possible they never use language in the text to talk about the differences but unless it is gibberish, maybe it is, it says something. Unaware of what they are talking about I have to try to narrow the scope. They are probably not referring to antlers and hooves. Hard say though.
For myself I am more interested in finding continuity in the book than identifying the word for root. If the ms is discussing plants in different sections than I would think there would have to be words in common between those sections, unless it is gibberish. Ok we all know that it might not say anything at all. But, if you composed a book with a bunch of full plant images with accompanying text; then wrote another section with various plant parts and items that look like containers there would be words in common.
Recipes:
which part of the plant to use root, leaf, stem
Grafting:
how to cut the stalk of the two plants to graft them
pharmaceutical:
this part dulls pain, this part is poison
...Ok just read DG97EEB, so I just repeated their sentiment...
The end of the root has a reddish tint when it is too young to harvest.
This root differs from other roots in the way that it connects to the stem.
These are all statements that would be useful in talking about a variety of roots on the same page. If the word root is removed none of it makes much since even if the page is full of roots. But in this case None of the folios in the Voynich display only roots. This would complicate the message for any of these statements. Are the leaves, stems, or roots covered with hairs. The word root is necessary to narrow the scope of the descriptions. But your point is taken and I agree. There may not be a word/symbol for root on a page full of roots.
The ms has a large amount of specific differences among its roots. It is possible they never use language in the text to talk about the differences but unless it is gibberish, maybe it is, it says something. Unaware of what they are talking about I have to try to narrow the scope. They are probably not referring to antlers and hooves. Hard say though.
For myself I am more interested in finding continuity in the book than identifying the word for root. If the ms is discussing plants in different sections than I would think there would have to be words in common between those sections, unless it is gibberish. Ok we all know that it might not say anything at all. But, if you composed a book with a bunch of full plant images with accompanying text; then wrote another section with various plant parts and items that look like containers there would be words in common.
Recipes:
which part of the plant to use root, leaf, stem
Grafting:
how to cut the stalk of the two plants to graft them
pharmaceutical:
this part dulls pain, this part is poison
...Ok just read DG97EEB, so I just repeated their sentiment...