- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
f17r
- f17r
-
RE: f17r
Bernd > 11-11-2025, 01:37 AM
(11-11-2025, 12:57 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, which word are you referring to?
Ah, I should have attached an image. This thread is about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , so obviously this word, not too man start with 'ot'. The way the following letters are connected is very un-voynichese.
I agree that the '8' in the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks voynichese. Probably more letters.
(11-11-2025, 12:57 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Either way, it is remarkable that, as in f116v, not a single word in that text makes sense, in any language. A mistaken restoration is the only plausible explanation I have seen for this fact.
Looking at the entire manuscript we have drawings that don't make sense, main text that doesn't make sense and marginalia that don't make sense. All have in common that they look familiar and are built from familiar elements but in the overall context appear nonsensical. I would say it is very coherent and we should not lose sight of the overall picture. No matter how much faded ink and water stains there were, I see no way how it could have ended up like this. At least something should have remained intelligible - if it ever was. The same goes for 'pen trials'. There should be a few normal words if this was the case. But there are not.This strongly lets me suspect that there never was any readable text - for whatever reason. My best guess still is an, uh, non-neurotypical creator of the whole thing. Someone who had obviously trouble writing in the Latin script. Look at the clumsy letters. Why retrace them like this at all compared to the clear Voynichese? That makes no sense. -
RE: f17r
Jorge_Stolfi > 11-11-2025, 02:59 AM
-
RE: f17r
Jorge_Stolfi > 11-11-2025, 03:26 AM
(11-11-2025, 01:37 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Looking at the entire manuscript we have drawings that don't make sense, main text that doesn't make sense and marginalia that don't make sense. All have in common that they look familiar and are built from familiar elements but in the overall context appear nonsensical.
Yet I think that there are different explanations for each of those puzzling elements.- Plants: my explanation is that the Author had only incomplete sketches of each plant, like those we see in Pharma. So, when he decided to turn his notes into a herbal with the format that Europeans were accustomed to, he told the Scribe to make up all the missing details, using existing herbals -- possibly "alchemical herbals" -- as "inspiration". That would explain why we can't identify any of the plants (except two or three, which the Scribe may have copied from nature or good serious herbals) but we can find many resemblances with other European herbals, "alchemical" or not.
- Text: As I just wrote elsewhere, my explanation is that it is an "East Asian" monosyllabic language written in an ad-hoc phonetic script. The Scribe who wrote it on vellum, however, was European, and did not understand the text. That would explain why the text superficially resembles European texts and has many properties of natural languages, and yet we cannot identify any grammatical structure like that of "European" languages.
- Zodiac: My explanation is that the source was an astrological/astronomical text from East Asia, where the Zodiac is traditionally divided into 24 sectors of exactly 15 degrees of arc each, starting in Pisces. But the Author used European sign icons to make that section more relatable to European readers. That would explain why Aries and Taurus were split in two, why every diagram has exactly 15 or 30 labels, etc.
- Month names: They may be apocryphal, and probably were written by someone who, for some reason, wanted to write them in a language that he did not quite master.
Quote:No matter how much faded ink and water stains there were, I see no way how it could have ended up like this. At least something should have remained intelligible - if it ever was.
But that is my point. The person who restored those faded/washed-out Voynichese texts did not understand Voynichese, and had not even learned the Voynichese alphabet. An did not realize that the original was Voynichese, not Latin.
All the best, --stolfi - Plants: my explanation is that the Author had only incomplete sketches of each plant, like those we see in Pharma. So, when he decided to turn his notes into a herbal with the format that Europeans were accustomed to, he told the Scribe to make up all the missing details, using existing herbals -- possibly "alchemical herbals" -- as "inspiration". That would explain why we can't identify any of the plants (except two or three, which the Scribe may have copied from nature or good serious herbals) but we can find many resemblances with other European herbals, "alchemical" or not.
-
RE: f17r
JoJo_Jost > 11-11-2025, 06:42 AM
@Bernd
At first, I also thought that the author was using Latin in the Voynich manuscript, but then I discovered the T ligature as an abbreviation for various Latin words and understood its function. That gave me the idea to interpret it as EL. And then the word made sense. Oel is the abbreviation for Oelum (confirmed), and the viol is also clearly recognisable. Oel. viol. is also a clear Latin abbreviation for violet oil, which has been proven to have been used since the Greeks in a medical context. Since it also fits perfectly into the rest of the Latin sentence, it is a likely translation option.
It is simply annoying that the water stain has made the last words illegible, because that would have been clear proof. Unfortunately, nothing can be recognised anymore. See below.
---------------
Are there no opinions on the translation? Complete nonsense or does it make sense?
m apiar' appar' fus3 her' pr AT minime oEL viol. aure [.........]
[b]Magister apiarius (ceram) apparat fusam [cum] herbis; propterea minime oleum violarum (in) aure [adhibendum est.][/b]
-
RE: f17r
Jorge_Stolfi > 11-11-2025, 09:03 AM
(11-11-2025, 06:42 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At first, I also thought that the author was using Latin in the Voynich manuscript, but then I discovered the T ligature as an abbreviation for various Latin words and understood its function. That gave me the idea to interpret it as EL
Do you have a source for t = "el"?
That reading of oteeol is not convincing :- The "abbreviation" ot would be longer than "oel".
- The ot would be an abbreviation of an abbreviation.
- The Latin for "oil" is "oleum", not "oelum".
- The words "oel" and "viol" should not be run together.
- The "v" of "viol" should look like the "u" in the third word ("lucz")
- The final character looks more like r with spurious noise than l with spurious noise.
- The Latin "l" of "viol" should look like the chars which you read as "p" in the first two word.
It is also significant that two of the words that do not appear to be retraced, and are invisible except in the ultraviolet images, look like Voynichese.
The reading of the other words as Latin is even more strained. With that much liberty, one can read anything as a medical sentence in Latin...
All the best, --stolfi - The "abbreviation" ot would be longer than "oel".
-
RE: f17r
JoJo_Jost > 11-11-2025, 10:57 AM
(11-11-2025, 09:03 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reading of the other words as Latin is even more strained. With that much liberty, one can read anything as a medical sentence in Latin...
May I cautiously ask whether you have read my other comments, where I explained in detail why I interpreted things the way I did? I ask because you just thought you were in another thread (116). And that's when I became suspicious. I don't mean this in a bad way, it's a serious question, because without these explanations I would come to the same conclusion as you: overinterpreted.
I think, however, that this things were what made the sentence so difficult to translate.
Yes, there is an abbreviation = “oel” oleum in recipes in German-speaking countries. And as a German, I probably got a little confused german oel = öl. But you could also see it the other way around L E in the T ligature without any problems. I have no special proof, but there are some indications that this was indeed possible.
Why the u in Mulhier is a capital A see Picture: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and when it is an A, then the "m" was magister (Lexicon abbreviaturarum 187)
Why the f in fusam or fucum is an f: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
f with a loop: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
How Autem is formed: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
u see that there are two lines, because otherwise the line is too thick.
and ole. viol. Of course, you write it close together. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But if, despite these indications, you still see it that way, then I will accept that. -
RE: f17r
Jorge_Stolfi > 11-11-2025, 11:29 AM
-
RE: f17r
JoJo_Jost > 11-11-2025, 06:13 PM
Since I forgot to include ‘autem’ in the sentence above, and the translation developed here in the thread, I am writing it again here in detail in one post to avoid more misunderstandings. I hope that is okay.
Magister apiarius (ceram) apparat fusam [cum] herbis; propterea autem minime oleum violarum (in) aure [adhibendum est]
Here are the first two words. I noticed that the u in ‘mulhier’ is actually a capital A (see bottom line). There is, albeit rarely, an A with a strong loop on the right-hand side, here indicating a capital letter.
(Lexicon abbreviaturarum Page 1)
This means that the first ‘L’ is not an L, but belongs to the A. For it is a Capital A, here starts a new word. The m stands alone without a makron = magister
The second L is also not an L, but a P, which can be recognised by the pointed loop. This can certainly be questioned, as it should actually be lower, but it seems to be a peculiarity of the writer's handwriting. The P leans against the loop of the A.
When this is a P, then the L in allar could be although a p.
So wie have:
m Apiar appar
There is an apostrophe after each of the two words, indicating that they have been shortened. Therefore:
m apiarius apparat = Magister apiarius apparat
then luz3
You can see the rest of a horizontal line through the former L. Koan asked whether there was an F with a loop at that time, which I was also able to confirm:
The macron above the 3 indicates that a letter is missing here.
It is not clear, if it is: fuzum or fusam for the c could be an s. both is possible.
her' = herba / herbis. its clear.
But here you can see that the ‘h’ in mulhier (apiar') cannot be an h, because that is the typical h. It is also in the alphabet that I added above as evidence for the loop in the F.
The next word is tricky. I noticed that the top line in both Ls was too thick and reminded me of a Gothic T. Then I realised that there's also a capital A with a loop here.
so u have a AT there = Autem
the whole word:
Assuming that this is an AT, there is still a maybe pr in front of it. I know that this is a bit of a stretch, but pr could stand for propter. However, I only have clear evidence for pt, but pr ist possible too.
minime is rel. clear, the missing downstrike may be to abbreviate the word.
Now it gets tricky and, admittedly, more speculative.
i have the idea, that the voynich t can be an L E:
u only have to put this both letters together..
And so u get ole. That could be the abbreviation for oleum.
I find viol. very easy to recognise.
= Viola Oil.
The aure can be proven, but of course it is hardly recognisable here.
= Magister apiarius (ceram) apparat fusam [cum] herbis; propterea autem minime oleum violarum (in) aure [adhibendum est]
Ceram is implied; I added "cum and in" for readability. "adhibendum est" is merely a prediction; here, a water stain has obviously destroyed everything legible.
That way, I can at least verify everything fairly accurately. And it results in a meaningful sentence that fits the context.
But I could also be completely wrong... that has often happened to me when translating handwritten Latin texts, no question about it. But at least it's the first meaningful sentence in this context here in this thread, which has been around for nine years – at least in my opinion. -
RE: f17r
Bernd > 11-11-2025, 06:40 PM
@JoJo_Jost
No offense but your 'translation' requires the same mental gymnastics I have seen countless times over the years trying to make 'sense' of the marginalia. The problem is that there are countless other such 'translations' (in various proposed languages) that lead to completely different results. It's tiresome.
I propose we take a step back and try to make a map of possible glyphs of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia. You know, positional variants for each glyph. What letters might there even be?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Is that word really 'oteeol' or 'oteeor'? I see 'ot'xxx'ol'
Are those voynich 'e's? And the way the second 'o' is connected to the adjacent letters is atypical for voynichese. We know from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that apparent single voynich glyphs may be inserted into seemingly latin words. -
RE: f17r
JoJo_Jost > 11-11-2025, 07:15 PM
(11-11-2025, 06:40 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@JoJo_Jost
No offense but your 'translation' requires the same mental gymnastics I have seen countless times over the years trying to make 'sense' of the marginalia. The problem is that there are countless other such 'translations' (in various proposed languages) that lead to completely different results. It's tiresome.
I know this mental gymnastic too, but I thought I wasn't actually doing it.
Perhaps you really can't see it yourself.
So: Thank you for your reply.
PS: I would like to add that I have looked at 116 several times and, for me, it is not just one language but several, with different letters, very mixed up, totally confusing stuff. Above all, however, it is a different script to the one here on f17r.
I know that others see it differently, but I would not even bother trying to translate 116v.