-JKP- > 25-02-2020, 06:09 PM
nablator > 25-02-2020, 06:19 PM
(25-02-2020, 06:09 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apostrophe is the easiest term to use when trying to explain them to English speakers. They are symbols that stand for left-out letters and they are extremly prevalent in medieval Latin.
They have many different apostrophes in Latin. Macrons, squiggle shapes (er/re/ir/ri), tails, etc. Very very common in Gothic script especially.
Wladimir D > 25-02-2020, 06:36 PM
-JKP- > 25-02-2020, 06:39 PM
Koen G > 25-02-2020, 06:56 PM
Monica Yokubinas > 25-02-2020, 08:01 PM
(25-02-2020, 06:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When I wrote elsewhere:
Quote:In fact I have other things to do that I consider more interesting, and I want to finish first.
no mystery was implied. I am having some 'fun' with the existing transliterations of the Voynich MS. All sorts of interesting things are coming out of that, and they will be written down somewhere soon.
One example is that my own transliteration ('ZL'), which was done in Eva, is much closer to the v101 transliteration which was done in GC's alphabet than to Takeshi Takahashi's transliteration which was again in Eva. I will be able to quantify this at some point.
Another interesting thing lies in the 'rare characters'. We are all used to seeing the examples of what appear to be badly-formed characters, or apparent corrections, in the many posts from Wladimir. But there are other cases as well. Just to give one example... (and referring to this page: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )
The extended Eva table has a character with code 203, which is also found in the v101 table with code 169.
This is a character that appears exactly once in the entire text, and it is in a clearly 'legible' part, namely the 8th line of f22r.
This is not an isolated case, and it is of interest to try to imagine what the existence of such characters tells us.
The clear execution shows that it was meant to look like this, and it is sufficiently different from other characters to
be sure it is not a 'mistaken identity'.
ReneZ > 25-02-2020, 08:49 PM
(25-02-2020, 06:56 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene, I don't think I had seen these things before. One's general impression of the MS is that the system is followed rigorously, so why these deviations?
I agree that they look deliberately formed. But what are they? Just rare characters, like a text in Dutch might contain only one "x"?
Scribal slip?
And if so, influence from Voynichese or from his "native" writing system?
Stephen Carlson > 25-02-2020, 10:33 PM
(25-02-2020, 08:49 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually, I would expect these things to happen if it were a meaningless fake, because despite all appearances of one, we're not really dealing with a (strictly controlled) alphabet but something meant to look like one. But then again, my expectation hardly qualifies as evidence.(25-02-2020, 06:56 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene, I don't think I had seen these things before. One's general impression of the MS is that the system is followed rigorously, so why these deviations?
I agree that they look deliberately formed. But what are they? Just rare characters, like a text in Dutch might contain only one "x"?
Scribal slip?
And if so, influence from Voynichese or from his "native" writing system?
These are exactly the questions I am asking myself.
If the text were meaningless or some kind of a 'fake', I would not expect these things to happen, but that hardly qualifies as evidence. Just a hint or a suggestion.
Koen G > 25-02-2020, 11:53 PM
-JKP- > 26-02-2020, 01:40 AM