Re: "abiril" vs "aberil"  Post #1071

I'm no expert, but if a selection of 15th C. texts is examined with the criterion of discovering how was the letter "e" constructed by various writers, some likely relevant information can be found.

I would construct the lower-case letter "e' starting with a short horizontal stroke from left to right that then loops up and back in a rough arch that connects to the starting point and then follows through in the full curve below. All without lifting the pen. That is not how the letter is constructed in many medieval texts. The investigation shows the letter "e" constructed of two separate parts that are meant to be connected, but when the examples show more informal handwriting, that connection doesn't always happen. Then there can be a clear separation of the two parts.

I believe it is generally agreed that the VMs is an example of such a separation and that it is "aberil" with a two-part "e" that didn't get connected.

Aberil is a bit off topic here, let's discuss that in one of the month names threads. The handwriting of the month names is certainly different from that of f116v.

(Yesterday, 12:54 PM)N._N. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, but this is clearly a misleading oversiplification. Everything we know about the manuscript, every kind of reasonable research reveals connections or information that we may not yet be able to piece together, but which might ultimately help getting closer to a solution, whatever that might be.

Perfect, but where does this contradict what I wrote?  Why was it a "misleading oversimplification"?

While collecting evidence, we must be well aware of what exactly it is about.  For instance, when studying the binding and cover of the book, we must keep in mind that the book was re-bound centuries after it was written, and that the cover is not original.  When analyzing the nymphs' hats, we must be aware that many of them were probably added by a later owner, again centuries after the original drawings were made. 

And, in particular, we must be aware that the person(s) who actually wrote the text and drew the figures on the parchment was quite probably not the same person who collected the information, chose the language, devised the script and the encoding, composed the text, and sketched the figures.

As I wrote before, I believe that the reason why no progress was made in the decipherment of the text in 600 years is that everybody jumped to the wrong conclusions about the language and contents, precisely because they tacitly but wrongly assumed that a certain mountain of evidence that has been collected was relevant to those questions.

All the best, --jorge

(11 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(Yesterday, 12:54 PM)N._N. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, but this is clearly a misleading oversiplification. Everything we know about the manuscript, every kind of reasonable research reveals connections or information that we may not yet be able to piece together, but which might ultimately help getting closer to a solution, whatever that might be.

Perfect, but where does this contradict what I wrote?  Why was it a "misleading oversimplification"?

Unless I missunderstood your point, this is:

(Yesterday, 09:30 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again, the "Northern Italy" clues only tell us that the Scribe(s) who actually wrote the text on the parchment and drew the illustrations was/were from Northern Italy.  The "Southern Germany/Augsburg/Prague" clues only tell us about where the manuscript may have been ~200 years after that.  The similarities of the Michitonese lines and month names to specific scripts and languages, like German or Latin charms, only tell us what language the person(s) who wrote those bits meant to write them in.  

First, there are elements indicating the region north of the alps for the manuscript itself, but you know that anyway and it is not really my point.

Isolating the clusters of information (i. e., regional, temporal, on language, on expenditure...) to the degree you seem to suggest here is an oversimplification, because we know there had to be connecting elements. Someone had to bring the manuscript from the place of origin to whichever library(/ies) or  collection(s) stored it for the following 200 years and then to Prague. There has to be a reason why the information on these transfers was lost at some point, be it by coincidence or on purpose. We have to combine the historical, scientific, linguistic etc. data to come to reasonable conclusions. This is explicitly or implicitly done all the time, for example, when dismissing the identification of 93r with a sunflower.

Additionally, it is also misleading to characterize the knowledge about the writing as limited to what the author(s) "meant" to write, in terms of language or anything else. With today's possibilities in terms of technology, comparative material and general knowledge, we can identify aspects that the author(s) were unaware they would reveal. See, for example, the project by Koen G and Marco P on this particular folio.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with this aspect as well:

Quote:As I wrote before, I believe that the reason why no progress was made in the decipherment of the text in 600 years is that everybody jumped to the wrong conclusions about the language and contents, precisely because they tacitly but wrongly assumed that a certain mountain of evidence that has been collected was relevant to those questions.

This implies the VMS would require more creative, outside-the-box thinking that mostly ignores the historical evidence. However, there is certainly no lack of this kind of works, on the contrary. What you are suggesting here is exactly the approach of all the numerous people who claim they have solved the cipher and bring their 'deciphered' texts here, to youtube or even the odd overly credulous university website... The by far best work on the manuscript has been done by working within the boundaries that historical and statistical evidence set.

The alchemical herbal MS Florence, Bibl. del Dip. di Botanico dell'Universita 106, was created in Northern Italy, and soon found its way into the possession of the Northern French physician Jean (de) Ruel.

It changed hands a couple of times, but the other people remain anonymous.
It is now back in Florence.

The Voynich MS and an alchemical herbal would likely be of interest to similar people, and in fact this alch. herbal has a cipher alphabet on its first page.

Some amount of travelling by the Voynich MS between its creation and (probably) Augsburg is certainly possible, though indeed we lack the evidence.