Helmut Winkler > 11-02-2019, 04:39 PM
-JKP- > 11-02-2019, 09:29 PM
(11-02-2019, 01:16 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
If it was a universal mark or part of the system (as you seem to assume), we'd expect to see it throughout the text: but we don't.
nickpelling > 11-02-2019, 10:23 PM
(11-02-2019, 09:29 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why does something have to be frequent to be "legitimate"? (...)
I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss variants of 4o as "copying errors" just because they are infrequent.
Linda > 11-02-2019, 10:35 PM
(11-02-2019, 09:29 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ju(11-02-2019, 01:16 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
If it was a universal mark or part of the system (as you seem to assume), we'd expect to see it throughout the text: but we don't.
Why does something have to be frequent to be "legitimate"?
In addition to these uncommon 4o patterns, there are also some uncommon characters that are clearly written and easy to distinguish from other characters but infrequently written. Are we going to call them copying errors?
I don't think anyone would call x a copying error, even though it is infrequent. In fact, some glyphs only occur once. I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss variants of 4o as "copying errors" just because they are infrequent.
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the 4o macron-shapes represent "a universal mark or part of the system" (or to deny that they are such), but I DO think they are deliberate (not mistakes) and deserve attention (provide clues).
ReneZ > 12-02-2019, 07:17 AM
(11-02-2019, 04:39 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is one of the most prominent features of the VMs that there are practically no marked abbreviations, that is more than striking for a medieval ms., there aren't any even on 116v
Helmut Winkler > 12-02-2019, 11:31 AM
-JKP- > 12-02-2019, 11:36 AM
Common_Man > 12-02-2019, 11:49 AM
-JKP- > 12-02-2019, 07:57 PM
(12-02-2019, 11:49 AM)Common_Man Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't it possible that someone was copying some centuries old manuscript to a new set of vellum (which was carbon dated to 1404-1438 period) and the underlying language was a lot more primitive than we thought Rather than Voynichese being something derived from Medieval latin conventions, couldn't it be something that contributed to (preceded) the development of the Latin scribal conventions as you all know it? Just an idea..
DONJCH > 13-02-2019, 10:01 AM
(10-02-2019, 05:07 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The afore mentioned counts and percentages can be discussed, but really, it is an accurate count you can crosscheck.
Because the counts and very very low percentages are the basis and fundaments of my current conclusions,
it would be possible to discuss from that position on forward that
1. It could be established that the scribe made much errors and mistakes, if you are open for it. Then specific textparts need to be discussed.
2. this is only useful if there are mutal agreeable assumptions (read: starting points).
3. And then there is the method used for comparing textparts must be accepted on every end.