• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?
• copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

• RE: copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 06:19 AM

  While reviewing a page for another reason, I found another good example:
  
  F19r.1 starts with the third word: qotshy dytshy gotchy qoky
  
  If you look closely and imagine someone sitting there copying something but unable to read the text clearly, that's exactly what they would do: 4 different versions of the same word. In this case, they are unsure about three things. 1. The first letter: q or dy, then he is not sure whether there is a titulus above the ch, ch or sh, and he is not sure whether it is a t or a k.
  
  And here there is a possible clue. The Gallows may have been spelled differently in the original text, because the ch is missing in the last version. It must also have looked as if there was a ch in the k Gallow. 
  
  This had dramatic consequences. Because that could be one of the reasons why it cannot be deciphered today. Those who copied it, however, may have already interpreted it and described it “differently” from the original. That would render the Voynich manuscript useless, so to speak. Not a hoax, but misinterpreted rubbish, because a lot of information was probably destroyed in the process. Information that might have been important for deciphering it. This means that the writing must have been very unclear, at least in some places, or so different that the person copying it did not understand it and, just as we do, created an "Eva" transcript that omits many subtleties. This would give us a transcript of a transcript, made by two people who did not know what they were doing. Then it would indeed be impossible to decipher it.
  
  This is a third theory alongside: hoax and not yet deciphered: it cannot be deciphered because it was too badly distorted by ignorant people when it was copied!

• RE: copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 06:25 AM

  and it explain the different "languages" in this manuscript, too..
  
  You would need a team that would go to great lengths to analyze the different variations/interpretations of the glyphs in the various languages of the Voynich manuscript based on this thesis, in order to determine what could be possible misinterpretations behind them, so that you could possibly deduce a source text.  I know that I couldn't do that, it would be too much effort... 

• RE: copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 12:40 PM

  Here, too, a second version has been added.
  
  
  
  At the top it says: ytain. At the bottom it says: ytcheb. These are two versions of the same word. When copying the text, the author does not know which version is correct.
  
  And then look at the following text and compare the two based solely on the rough handwriting. Here, too, the author simply used a second version – which was not unusual at the time.
  
  And if that is the case, it proves how difficult it was to recognise the underlying text... which is truly remarkable. Because then, as already mentioned, we have an interpreted version, which logically means that no one can decipher it.

• RE: copy of an older, barely legible manuscript?

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 03:09 PM

  Sry, had Problems with my Browser....
• Next Oldest Next Newest