Morten St. George > 23-03-2019, 08:21 PM
(23-03-2019, 05:48 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There's an entire medieval manuscript that enciphers common medical recipes. People don't always need a complex reason to use cipher and our job is not to DECIDE what that reason is. Our job is to research and discover the reason.
Morten St. George > 23-03-2019, 09:13 PM
Quote:But if the Voynich MS ever were to be successfully deciphered, whether by me or someone else here or someone else anywhere or whomever, ... we would lose all of that. The mystery would be gone. There would be no more puzzle left to analyze and speculate about and research. It would be just another historical document.
-JKP- > 24-03-2019, 10:21 AM
Linda > 24-03-2019, 03:34 PM
(24-03-2019, 10:21 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Get rid of the assumptions
Morten St. George > 24-03-2019, 05:17 PM
(24-03-2019, 10:21 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think of your ideas as "fringe theories". I don't care about their status as theories.
What I SEE is sloppy, incomplete research filled with assumptions. Get rid of the assumptions, get more background, WAIT until you really know something about it and THEN formulate a theory and you won't have to keep "letting go" of previous topics as you have in this thread. If you had researched all those things before developing the theory, you probably would have saved a lot of time by not having to backtrack.
Morten St. George > 24-03-2019, 05:49 PM
(24-03-2019, 03:34 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, If you are open to further criticism, I would also recommend dumping references to what others may or may not have identified in the past. If your identification is different, there is no need to bring in someone elses' likely erroneous take on the matter, it just clutters up your presentation, and can put the reader into a state of disagreement even before they get to the part where you outline your own theory. i.e. dont call it the recipes section if you dont think they are recipes, call it quire 20 instead of italicizing the word 'recipes'. If you dont think it says pox leber or has to do with goat liver, then dont include that part, you not thinking it is the case is already implied in your explanation of your own theory. Commenting on these items can rub the wrong way, and yet has nothing to do with your theory other than being in opposition, so is better off not discussed within the theory presentation itself.
Linda > 24-03-2019, 07:22 PM
(24-03-2019, 05:49 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-03-2019, 03:34 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, If you are open to further criticism, I would also recommend dumping references to what others may or may not have identified in the past. If your identification is different, there is no need to bring in someone elses' likely erroneous take on the matter, it just clutters up your presentation, and can put the reader into a state of disagreement even before they get to the part where you outline your own theory. i.e. dont call it the recipes section if you dont think they are recipes, call it quire 20 instead of italicizing the word 'recipes'. If you dont think it says pox leber or has to do with goat liver, then dont include that part, you not thinking it is the case is already implied in your explanation of your own theory. Commenting on these items can rub the wrong way, and yet has nothing to do with your theory other than being in opposition, so is better off not discussed within the theory presentation itself.
Linda, you are right: I should have put the word "recipes" into quotes rather than use italics because in no way do I think, or want others to think, that the VMS contains cooking instructions. It was only a matter of communication given that the term recipes is often found in the literature to refer to the text section. Then again, it could be confusing to call it the "text section" because most of the manuscript contains text
I saw someone refer to it as the "stars section" (the paragraphs in that section being with bullets in the form of stars) and I tried that for a while. Then to my dismay I noticed that JP thought I was referring to the astronomy section, so I had to drop that idea too.
Your suggestion of "Quire 20", though technically correct, also has to be rejected because I'm quite sure that, outside of this forum, almost nobody knows what a quire is.
Right now, I like JP's idea of "deep text" the best. So that's what I'm going to do. As soon as I get the chance, I'm going to change the first "recipes" to "Deep Text section (final 23 pages of the manuscript)" and thereafter refer to it as the "Deep Text". I will also try to improve the "pox leber" wording. Many thanks for your input on these matters.
Morten St. George > 24-03-2019, 10:03 PM
(24-03-2019, 07:22 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[You currently have recipes in quotes once, italicized twice. Again, i would advise they all be replaced by the term quire 20 (i think anyone who knows the vms enough to be comparing theories will know what a quire is), or else use terminology like the last section, or pages You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to f116z, and remove the references to cooking, etc.
As it is, it either does look like you are saying they are recipes, or it looks like you are being sarcastic about it, either way, it detracts from the presentation of your theory.
I agree that the text section and stars section are more ambiguous, that is why i like the term quire 20. A quick search on the internet would help anyone that didnt know what it meant. The reference to deep text could also be confusing, but would be preferable to the current wording.
Morten St. George > 28-03-2019, 04:02 AM
(01-03-2019, 01:08 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your task is to reciprocate JKP's efforts by actually reading the many posts on JKP's blog.
Yes reading them, not just scanning through one post to copy/paste a picture.
Yes, this may take some time, but I'm sure it will lead to a better quality discussion in the future.
Does that seem fair?
Quote:Additionally, after analysis of the handwriting, he estimated that "six to eight scribes (copyists, encipherers, call them what you will)" penned the main text. For him, there was only one possible conclusion: "It must be a copying job."
Quote:What we do know for sure is that it's got a stirrup, and crossbows with stirrups appear in manuscript art during the 13th century. Around Spain rather than Germany.
-JKP- > 28-03-2019, 04:08 AM
(28-03-2019, 04:02 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-03-2019, 01:08 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your task is to reciprocate JKP's efforts by actually reading the many posts on JKP's blog.
Yes reading them, not just scanning through one post to copy/paste a picture.
Yes, this may take some time, but I'm sure it will lead to a better quality discussion in the future.
Does that seem fair?
I've spent a little time over the past few days looking at diverse blogs (as I had promised to do). One of the more interesting things I found was this page from Koen's blog,
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
where I read the following about Currier's insights:
Quote:Additionally, after analysis of the handwriting, he estimated that "six to eight scribes (copyists, encipherers, call them what you will)" penned the main text. For him, there was only one possible conclusion: "It must be a copying job."
What I fail to understand (and would like to know) is why you guys are rejecting Currier's copying job theory. Do you have technical evidence that would contradict his findings? If so, I would like to know what it is.