The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

1) Aberil was used, in print, in sufficient publications in the 18th or 19th centuries to fulfill my Theorem #1.
2) Furthermore, several references are to an "... an important Swiss epic poem written in dialect.", which reinforces #1. I mean, it was not in somebody's daily diary, it was a repeatedly published, well known and important poem
3) But as AI pointed out, above, it could also date to the era of the Voynich
4) And it may point to a Swiss/Germanic origin for these appended month names, or at least this one, whether the Voynich is old and real, or new and fake.

Rich

I will note that the AI summary snuck in an extremely important sentence, namely: "The uninflected, base root of this exact word in the 14th/15th century was Aberel or Aberil." 

This simply is not the case. Aberel is indeed correct, and so is the relatively common "in dem aberellen". Aberil is not. We have plenty of aberels and aberellen, including the Codex manesse as cited. But aberel is not the same as aberil.

OK I didn't catch that, but you realize you are making my case, and not yours, with that observation? That is, the "Aberil" form, if not contemporary with the Voynich, implies even further that it is anachronistic, and finds anachronisms and anomolies favor the forgery, not the genuine.

In fact one of the reasons I didn't catch that was probably because the first results from AI were telling me that the word did not exist in manuscript form, and asked me where I got it. When I prompted it with the link to the book, it gave me the posted answer... and I failed to note what you did. I was posting it because I wanted to be open minded and show what I had found. But turns out this is another blow to genuine, instead.

I do disagree with the phrasing of "sufficient", as it implies that the usage was widespread in print to the point that voynich was in any way likely to have seen it. It really wasn't, and the usage was still extremely niche as far as I can tell. The fact that a whole community hell-bent on finding aberil has not happened across these 'important' poems before strongly suggests that it isn't that important. Such poems, like "in dem aberellen, so die blûmen springen" have been easily found by us. 

We are using extremely powerful tools to find these which voynich didn't have. But sure, technically voynich may have read this poem (among many many other poems containing aberel, abrel, abril etc) and chosen this form instead of the other forms. So I admit that there isn't actually any way for me to argue against what you are saying, which is fine 

Well surprise we disagree! But again I point out what I think is an incorrect assumption here... that Voynich, like us, was looking for cases of "Aberil". Why do you think that? There are probably thousands of rare words which would have and are hard to find... but he didn't have to do that. He just used a word he read. Probably didn't even know it was rare...

But also I take issue with your contention that it is rare in the first place. We have found it in a handful of sources, in maybe a dozen books, and without knowing the publication numbers OF those books, how can you assume they are "rare"? Thousands of any one or all of those books may have been published.

All that being said, again, the word was in print before 1910, so it fits the Voynich Theorem #1. That was my point... this has so far happened every, single, time... and it happened again.

Here is a little anecdote about the effects of rarity: The engraving of the map that the Vinland map forger traced to make his bogus map is in a VERY rare book. I don't know the numbers, but when I wanted to see a copy I had to request it from the NYPL Rare Map Room. There is only a smattering of them around the world. I mean, point being, even if rare it is not an issue.

But I doubt those books were rare.

"If you can find a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works, you would certainly have me questioning things, as it would constitute finding something that has never been found in any manuscript."

Would I have you questioning things... questioning your position? Look what happened just now, with the mentions I found of Aberil... in published books, in multiple copies, printed several times, over decades in two centuries, AI telling us there were no other 15th century examples, and the word also being used in not only a popular poem, but in several other cases... and the numbers of those books published unknown...

... yet, still, you say it is not probable that Voynich saw one of these examples? I think the very standards you, yourself have set to lower this threshold are impossible to meet... and so, I really doubt that if I find "... a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works", that likewise, you would not accept said find, and "really have you questioning things".

If you are not questioning things now, I mean, I am not sure what would, because what I found was actually pretty good, by almost any reasonable standard.

And as Mauro reminds me, what of octembre? The fact that its usage in manuscripts seems to have peaked at around the same time as the dating of the parchment is extremely coincidental imo. The chances that Voynich would find a rare octembre in an 19th century print and happen to have chosen a form that matches the dating would be really lucky. Alternatively, he researched which forms to use in order to be accurate, but then chose to split into two languages.

So I have to find "octembre" too? Ok add that to the list. I don't think you will accept the results, as you didn't with the last results, but what do I have to lose but more precious time? JK. Anyway, for my own uses, I feel this exercise is far from pointless... almost every time someone challenges me, they end up making my case stronger, and compel me on to new blog content, and points to add to my hypothesis.

OK I could not resist, and had five minutes before I had to get up to do the dishes... I did a search for "octembre", and found it in French PUBLICATIONS: Two from 1906, an 1882 ,an 1881, two 1844, an 1897, an 1883, and a 1907 books, all on just the first page of results! So, "Another one bites the dust". But I have to go for now... perhaps I will see if, like "Aberil", this word also didn't exist when the Voynich calves died.

Rich