- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
No text, but a visual code
- No text, but a visual code
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
Aga Tentakulus > 28-10-2023, 11:21 AM
I think the same as Koen. Certainly later and it looks to me like it was written with a metal nib.
Hard to read. I would need some time to familiarise myself with the handwriting. But some things are clear.
That's how I see it.
It's both there. Whole words as well as separate words. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
oshfdk > 28-10-2023, 11:26 AM
These on 26r: _aiin_, _ok_, _dy_ look very much like Voynich word pieces, two endings and one beginning. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
ReneZ > 28-10-2023, 01:00 PM
The argument being discussed here was already brought up decades ago in earlier discussion boards, and there are several different possible explanations. As a result, this is hardly evidence for lack of meaning.
Other possible explanations that I don't think I have seen here are:
- the Voynich words may not be words, but parts of words, and word breaks are only partly relevant
- it all fits very well, because this was copied from a draft where this had been sorted out.
These alternative explanations are also not very strong, so one can pick the conclusion that one likes.
In fact, the whole discussion about meaningful/meaningless is inconclusive, because reasonable arguments can be presented for either side. (This is generally true for all types of never-ending discussions). -
RE: No text, but a visual code
nablator > 28-10-2023, 01:11 PM
(28-10-2023, 11:07 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure I fully understand this argument. First of all, you mentioned -dy and -ar, they both appear twice as isolated strings between image elements:
I need to be more specific, sorry.
Split common endings would be d.<>y, e.<>y, r.<>y, s.<>y, a.<>i, i.<>n, o.<>r. a.<>r., o.<>l, a.<>l, etc.: there aren't any.
Unattached endings certainly exist everywhere, including after interruptions, but they do not appear to have been split (we can't be sure, but there is no good evidence) when the re-assembled vord does not exist or the two parts exist elsewhere as two separate vords.
In ZL_ivtff_2b.txt there are 24 lines with unattached endings after an interruption, regex "\.<->([eodrs]y|[oa][rl]|[mg])\b" but 13 of them follow another common ending, regex "([eodrs]y|[oa][rl]|[mg])\.<->([eodrs]y|[oa][rl]|[mg])\b".
Of the 11 remaining lines:
.t[o:e].<->ar: possible, but there is a .to.ar. on f23r.2 so it's not good evidence of a split vord
.s.<->or. : possible, but there are 8 .s.or. so it's not good evidence of a split vord
.s.<->ok.<->ol. : sok is not a vord, okol is but it is split without interruption on 1st line of 1st paragraph of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
.s.<->dy. : sdy is not a vord
.da.<->ar: possible but da and ar are vords
chckhy.<->ar : chckhyar is not a vord
.qod.<->ar. : possible but qod and ar are vords
.cthy.<->ykoda.<->ol cthyykoda and ykodaol are not vords
.sl.<->ar. : slar is not a vord
.qokain.?.<->or : ? is unreadable
.qokeeas.<->al : qokeeasal is not a vord -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Aga Tentakulus > 28-10-2023, 02:07 PM
.s.<->or. : possible, but there are 8 .s.or. so it's not good evidence of a split vord
.s.<->ok.<->ol. : sok is not a vord, okol is but it is split without interruption on 1st line of 1st paragraph of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
.s.<->dy. : sdy is not a vord
.da.<->ar: possible but da and ar are vords
I think by "sok" you mean "EVA Sol" ? I have not found "sok".
Take a picture and mark the characters.
I am not a friend of EVA and others. For me, only pictures of the text count. Too many variables. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
oshfdk > 28-10-2023, 02:07 PM
(28-10-2023, 01:11 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unattached endings certainly exist everywhere, including after interruptions, but they do not appear to have been split (we can't be sure, but there is no good evidence) when the re-assembled vord does not exist or the two parts exist elsewhere as two separate vords.
Let me try to rephrase to check that I understand your argument. It went something like this:
oshfdk> <...> if this herbal does split the words using the stem, there is no reason to believe this was impossible in the Voynich manuscript
nablator> There is. <...> Unattached endings certainly exist everywhere, including after interruptions, but they do not appear to have been split (we can't be sure, but there is no good evidence) when the re-assembled vord does not exist or the two parts exist elsewhere as two separate vords.
So, as I understand it, you are saying there is reason to believe it was impossible for Voynichese to split the words using the stem, because it never splits words in a way that produces pieces not seen on their own (say, splitting a||iin or e8||y). And also if you try to reassemble these words, they either don't exist in the MS or exist as separate words. Is this correct?
Naturally, when people split words for one reason or the other (say, hyphenation), they tend to split at certain points, like syllable boundaries. For example, if you want to split "existing", you can do it as "exis-ting" or "exist-ing", it's highly unlikely you will do "existi-ng". Or you can split "carrot" as "car-rot", and less likely as "carr-ot" or "carro-t", and as you can see the default split produces two parts that work as quite common words on their own. It's natural property of most languages that words are built with a limited number of syllables that are both the best boundary for splitting the word and are separate words on their own.
Also, it's possible that the symbols on either side of the split are some kinds of special marks or have some special meaning, or they are a special (hyphen-like) form of other symbols. Three EVA 's' preceding the split on 26r could each function as some kind of interruption mark. So the reassembled words do not exist, because the form (or presence) of these symbols located next to the split point may change.
Overall I see you argument as more of "what is more likely" than "what is impossible", but maybe I missed something. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
nablator > 28-10-2023, 02:14 PM
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
oshfdk > 28-10-2023, 02:21 PM
(28-10-2023, 01:00 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In fact, the whole discussion about meaningful/meaningless is inconclusive, because reasonable arguments can be presented for either side. (This is generally true for all types of never-ending discussions).
Discussing meaningful/meaningless does seem meaningless, but discussing whether the layout is compatible with text of any kind is important at least for me. It helps in narrowing down the possibilities. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
oshfdk > 28-10-2023, 02:40 PM
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
MarcoP > 28-10-2023, 02:40 PM