- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] Big f116v spillover thread.
- [split] Big f116v spillover thread.
-
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
JoJo_Jost > 22-07-2026, 02:53 PM
It's—not unlike to other charms—a mix of languages, in this case: German and Latin, and Voynichese as well. -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Stefan Wirtz_2 > 22-07-2026, 02:59 PM
-
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
JoJo_Jost > 22-07-2026, 03:09 PM
There are 8 to 10 German words
“poxleber” = goat liver
“six” = six
‘vix’ = “fix” = fix (adv.) quickly, fast.
“palsen” = “balsen” = ‘balsam’
“so” = so
“nim” = take
“gaf” = chaff, wheat
“mich” = me
All of this comes with sources, if desired.
Still without a source, so not certain: marix morix = mastix and myrrhe
I’ll leave out “vbren” / “pbren”... -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Stefan Wirtz_2 > 22-07-2026, 03:25 PM
(22-07-2026, 03:09 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are 8 to 10 German words
[..]
All of this comes with sources, if desired.
[..]
German words never come with -x as endings. That’s why pox—> Bocks looks more than unusal. These
-x-ers are lean words, at best.
„six“ is what in German? You have a source for that?
„vix“ and even „fix“ would be Latin — translation into a (today‘s) German meanings should be validated.
You produced a source for „balsem-en“ or such (not even „palsen“) which shows also versions like „balsam“ repeatedly on the same page — which is just a centuries-later transcription. And again, that‘s not German.
„nim“ appears also in Polish, Czech, Sorbic and Korean. With different meanings. Proof for „must be German“..?
etc.
So you, as a German, „easy understand most“ of it as Latin? -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Jorge_Stolfi > 22-07-2026, 03:54 PM
(22-07-2026, 12:29 PM)J_Voy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The last two words are not "goat's milk". Objectively, the first one could be read as "gas" or "gaf", but neither is a reasonable misspelling of a Germanish word for "goat's". As Koen himself observed in the video, to be a Germanish word for "milk", the second word should have an "l", and there seems to be no sensible explanation for its absence.Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... Those few "words" that could be "Germanish" or Latin words do not make sense together.
So why does the last line almost seem to refer back to the first? "poxleber" (buck's liver), "gaſmich" (goat's milk), suggesting to the reader so first take the liver of a goat, then the milk of a goat? The last three words are especially clear as "ſo nim gaſmich.", translating to "then take goat's milk.", along with all the other elements of a medieval charm that suggest it is in fact, a medieval charm?
Objectively , that second word is "mich". Which is good German for "me" -- but then the two words don't seem to make sense.
And likewise it took some strain to interpret the first word at the top as "buck's liver". That reading was chosen because it was assumed that it had to be a meaningful Germanish word.
And, anyway, in what sense does "goat's milk" refer back to "buck's liver"?
To read the last two words as "goat's milk", and see them as referring to "poxleber", one must assume that they were supposed to make sense, but both were grossly misspelled; and in fact one must assume that the four lines are a recipe (that includes a charm). Except that the recipe seems to end mid-sentence...
Quote:
Not "just so happen"; they obviously were unaffected by the spill. Unfortunately the edge (A) of the spill cannot be seen above the (B) line in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..Quote:Again, the Restorer who tried to recover the lost (Voynichese) text apparently thought that the parag was a charm, and tried to "restore" the smudges accordingly.
So why wouldn't the restorer have seen the two Voynichese words that just so happen to be perfectly untouched, along with the rest of the manuscript being in Voynichese, and figure out that the text was in fact, not in Latin or German, but in this mysterious language no one could read?
Moreover, wetting alone should have softened the ink, but would not erase it completely. What erased the original text must have been the careless wiping of the spilled water. Even if the aror sheey got wet, it could have escaped the wiping.
The Restorer apparently had not spent any time examining the manuscript, and so did not realize that the text had to be in the Voynichese script, not Latin script. He may have been a Jesuit librarian scrambling to rescue a couple dozen books affected by a roof leak. The Restorer could have been the Spiller himself; who could have been anyone in the owner's household, or a friend who borrowed the book to peruse it over lunch. In this case, he probably knew that his reconstruction would be totally wrong, but hoped that it would keep the owner (who surely could not read Voynichese either) from noticing his big oopsie.
Quote:
Quote:By the way, two of the crosses (after "multod" and after "cere") are closed at the northwest quadrant by a diagonal line, so that they look more like a "4". But crosses are normally drawn with a vertical down stroke and a left to right horizontal stroke. If the quill is not completely lifted off the vellum between the two traces, the result would be a diagonal line closing off the southwest or northeast quadrant, depending on which stroke is drawn first. The diagonal line at the northwest suggests that what the Restorer saw there was a "4", not just a cross. Like a partially erased q...
You do know that when writing '+' shapes fast, diagonal connecting lines can happen when writing normally, right?
I can say this because whenever I have to write a '+' as part of a math equation, or something similar, typically I write it fast, and in one stroke without lifting my pen off the paper, which usually results in a diagonal lines in either the northwest, or northeast quadrants, depending on the direction I wrote the symbol in. A shape just just like a 4, or indeed, q is just a consequence of writing a '+' symbol in one stroke.
Please read again what I wrote. That "lazy pen" explanation could apply to a diagonal in the NW quadrant only if the vertical stroke was traced first upwards, or if the horizontal stroke was traced first right to left. Both are "forbidden" directions for a right-handed person writing with a quill. (And we know that he was right-handed from the way the bold pen strokes end.)
Those diagonal strokes were deliberate, and in fact they are probably remains of the original writing. Whoever wrote them traced the vertical stroke first, lifted the pen, then drew the diagonal and horizontal strokes in one motion. As if writing a "4". Or a q...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Koen G > 22-07-2026, 04:06 PM
I agree that the whole thing is a mess, and unattested is more often than not a required qualifier. A huge exception being "so nim": this is so often followed by an ingredient, that I believe the reading of "gasmich" as a corruption of "gaismilch" can be defended.
But yes, the thing is fragmentary, segmented and either weirdly spelled or corrupted. This can be expected of the charm lines, but should not be the case for the rest. -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
JoJo_Jost > 22-07-2026, 04:34 PM
@ Stefan: This is going to be the last time I respond to your posts; I'm just again sick and tired of your arrogant attitude again.
(22-07-2026, 03:25 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.German words never come with -x as endings. That’s why pox—> Bocks looks more than unusal. These
-x-ers are lean words, at best.
Six
4. The spelling [sechs = sex and other word with chs] with “x” is also attested in later periods; in general, this spelling has become more common in such words alongside the spelling with “gs” since the 14th century.
Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Note: In section 2 of this source, it is noted that “die sechs” (the six)also appears as a "glimpffluch, betheurungs-, verwunderungsformel" (formula of exclamation, affirmation, or surprise) that would fit in a charm...
german sources:
bei meiner six (Campe, Schmeller),
mei six,
meiner sixen (Albrecht, Hertel),
mîn six (Frommann, elsaess.)"
There is some debate as to whether this “six” really comes from “sechs”, but it is a german word!
fix: (and vix) = Fast, quick
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
palsen:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
i found a source: 1400
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
gaf = Kaf
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
-> You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Many spells / charms from that era aren't about understanding at all... just saying...
PS: I'm not saying that all the words are actually German or that they're the exact words I've written here! But there seems to be definitely a striking number of German words on this folio...
-
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Stefan Wirtz_2 > 22-07-2026, 04:58 PM
(22-07-2026, 04:34 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is going to be the last time I respond to your posts;
Good.
I find it more arrogant to say „I understand most of it“, followed by guessing and insecurities, but: your choice.
(22-07-2026, 04:34 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Six
Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm:
Grimm brothers worked 400 years after VMS era.
Did you ever happen to wonder what „sextus“ is and where it comes from? Right, it‘s Latin. „Sechs“ is what we have the beautiful expression „Verballhornung“ for… not really German.
(22-07-2026, 04:34 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.fix: (and vix) = Fast, quick
… tight (fest): Latin!
[vix = barely (kaum)]: Latin!
gas is not gaf is not kaf…
(22-07-2026, 04:34 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.palsen:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Still not fitting = a guess
(22-07-2026, 04:34 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.PS: I'm not saying that all the words are actually German or that they're the exact words I've written here!
You should have written that first, before or instead of claiming to „understand the most“…
(22-07-2026, 04:34 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But there seems to be definitely a striking number of German words on this folio...
Still: nope.
Which ones, and where?
Just „so“, „nim“ and „mich“ remain as candidates; and those are not exclusively German, but also appear in other languages. Only the combination as „so nim“ fixes(!) it a bit.
And for Latin: what is „mamx“? Is it even Latin, or do those words appear…? -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Jorge_Stolfi > 22-07-2026, 06:26 PM
(22-07-2026, 02:29 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's hard to disentangle the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. discussion from this thread. As long as stolfi doesn't mind, we can discuss it here, since it also involves his retracing theory.
I don't mind moving these messages to a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread, or to a new thread "The Big Spill theory for f116v".
The nature of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has no bearing on the Chinese Origin theory. The discussion started here only because the "German" text of f116v, assumed to be original and contemporaneous with the rest of the text, was offered as "proof" that Voynichese cannot be "Chinese".
But note that this Big Spill theory for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not related to my retracing claims (the Massive Retracing theory -- a general restoration pass that would have carefully retraced most of the text and part of the drawings, or the Sparse Retracing theory -- later scattered and less careful touch-ups, including characteristic "improvements" to the nymphs by the "Boobs Retracer").
In my view, the retracing of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was distinct from those two events. It was limited to that page (or perhaps also to f17r), and whoever did it had very different goals and skills than whoever did the two retracing/retouching passes above.
Quote:Poxleber has been attested earlier as an ingredient, a piece of meat. This has to be the preferential reading.
Maybe it is indeed "buck's liver", but that would be merely what the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Restorer thought that the surviving smudges could have been.
Quote:gasmich has NOT been attested as goat milk, so this remains shaky.
I don't know about the "gas", but I would explain the "mich" as being indeed German "mich". Again, that would be the Restorer's best guess for what the smudges in that area could have been.
I understand that the reading " mich" does not make sense, with any reading of "gas"; but the reading "so nim gais milch o" does not make sense either as the end of a sentence.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Jorge_Stolfi > 22-07-2026, 10:24 PM
(22-07-2026, 08:59 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stolfi: that little "thorn" thingy is actually expected for long-s, it comes from doubling the line.
But there is no sign of anything like it in the long "s"s of "six" and "so nim".
What do you mean by "doubling the line"? The double trace that is usually seen when the pen is running out of ink and/or pressed too hard?
That does not seem to be the case in that "gas". There is the thick somewhat curvy leg of the "s" (that seems to start at the green arrow), and a thin straight line to the right of it (red arrows). But this second line extends up beyond the "head" of the "s", so they cannot have been created in the same stroke of the pen.
All the best, --stolfi
PS. I remembered that there is already You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., in case you wish to keep this thread limited to its stated topic.