The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[eggyk]

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.

I meant what I said that the aberil was an interesting find, and admit that your finding of a printed aberil firmly puts the form into that category of "unlikely, but possible, in both the forgery and genuine theories", instead of what I assumed at first which was that it was only possible in the genuine theory. I say both theories now, as we now know that it was present in at least a few printed works -even if other forms are far far more common- and it was also present in a few manuscripts -even if other forms were far far more common- with evidence that the form existed in certain rare dialects. So your argument has pulled my position towards the neutral in this regard. 

As for octembre/octebre, if you have the time I would appreciate the links to those. I don't know exactly how you search, but all I get on google books are history publications containing written correspondance or direct quotes from the 12th-15th centuries, and not the usage of octembre in works of the 18-19th century itself. (incidentally, these are books that I have come across in german digital libraries too) If those publications are being counted, then sure. I was under the impression that those were not widely printed and weremeant for research, but that may be totally wrong. 

"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...

jollet is different. It represents something we've never seen. Evidence that it existed in later publications yet seemingly never existed in manuscripts would be extremely interesting to me. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But finally, none of this is meant to be a "gotcha" to disprove one theory or to prove another. In the first instance, I asked you for your view on some of these month name forms, given that I have done research in that area and had come to my own conclusions about their rarity/use across time. The fact that you are coming back with examples backing up your theory is exactly what I am looking for. 

So 'questioning my position' is what I am doing constantly. The reason that I search back to 800AD and forward to 1912AD for things like month names and zodiac signs is specifically because I am trying not to take a firm position on when/where the manuscript was written (or where/when the content was copied from).