[split] Aga Tentakulus' Logical System

[Aga Tentakulus]

As I see it, this is a discussion forum, not a lecture theatre.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s simply part and parcel of a healthy discussion, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

[Oscroft]

As I see it, this is a discussion forum, not a lecture theatre.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s simply part and parcel of a healthy discussion, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

For what it's worth, a forum I used to moderate had a simple civility rule: "Attack the argument, not the person." I think that's a good guideline for online discussions in general, and in my experience it leads to more constructive dialogue. Anyway, I offer it only as a suggestion.

[Koen G]

We have a warning for ad hominems, so this is definitely part of our moderating strategy. In fact, Mr. Tentakulus has amassed quite a collection of them over the years. We also have a report post button. As far as I can see, the posts in this discussion are heated but not ad hominem though.

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

[..]
‘Tum’ and ‘tuum’ both mean ground.

No, they don't.
I had to learn (long time ago) "tum = damals, dann, darauf" (once, then, ~thereafter),
"tuum" means "dein" (yours) through several forms.

"tum" is never "land" (or abbreviated "Taurus").

"in tuo" means "in deinem..." (in your), but the substantial word is missing in that.

The well-known "terra" means "land", or "rus" or some other exoctics which do not come close to "tu...".

And we have to blink eyes very much to read 8 randomly as D or T, whenever it occurs: Latin and many other languages are clearly distinguished between D and T, even more when it is a word-starting letter. Medieval writing shows a lot of shifts, but the essentials are generally more strictly written.
Even in weird "dialects".

Nein, tun sie nicht.
Ich musste "tum" (vor langer Zeit mal) als "damals, dann, darauf" lernen,
"tuum" heißt "dein" in verschiedenen Abwandlungen.

"in tuo" bedeutet "in deinem...", aber da fehlt das entscheidende Wort noch.

"Terra" heißt bekannterweise "Land", oder "rus" (Wortstamm z.B. von "rural" usw.) und ein paar Exoten, aber njchts dabei ist annähernd "tu...".

Und wir müssen schon kräftig wegblinzeln, wenn 8 wahlfrei als D oder T gelesen wird, wo immer es gerade passt; Latin und viele andere Sprachen unterscheiden sehr klar zwischen D und T, gerade am Wortanfang. Mittelalterliche Schrift zeigt zwar zahllose Verschiebungen, aber die entscheidenden Stellen sind meist disziplinierter geschrieben.
Sogar in den schrägsten "Dialekten".

Don’t hold me responsible for Google’s work, or the dialect, or the spelling from 1400.
The point is, it always works and looks nice too.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Well, you are responsible for translations posted - who else?

I can just warn about the unchecked use of internet translators;
Google translator tends to shift back to modern english word roots without warning, when it comes to difficult passages.
Your (wrong-translated) sentence "Deas tum tas tatis" is a good example, GT seems to have "read" >tatis< as a variation of >state< or >estate< and delivered something with "land" - which was not mentioned in any understanding of it as Latin.


Na ja, du bist schon für die Qualität von veröffentlichten Übersetzungen verantwortlich - wer sonst?

Ich kann nur davor warnen, online-Übersetzungen ungeprüft zu nutzen;
Google Translator neigt ohne Vorwarnung dazu, auf Wortstämme aus dem modernen Englisch zurückzuschalten, wenn es nicht klarkommt.
Dein (falsch übersetzter) Satz "Deas tum tas tatis" ist so ein Beispiel, GT scheint <tatis> as eine Form von <state> oder <estate> gelesen zu haben und brachte irgendwas mit "Land" - was in keinem Verständnis des (nicht-)"Lateins" erwähnt war.

[Aga Tentakulus]

GT seems to have "read" >tatis< as a variation of >state< or >estate

You’re certainly right about that too.
But what if Google read it as ‘datis’, which is actually two words: ‘dat is’?
   
Let’s assume that ‘aiin’ is ‘utis’, which means ‘to use’.
Wouldn’t it be possible that ‘ain’ is the split version of ‘utis’ – ‘ut is’? Or the other way round.
Or that ‘adis’ simply becomes ‘ad is’.
From a cryptological point of view.

[Aga Tentakulus]

"tum" is never "land" (or abbreviated "Taurus").

   
You’ve misunderstood something there.
This is about an unintentional spelling mistake by the writer. He actually spelled ‘tum’ correctly, not ‘89’.
8 + 9 are the first and last symbols of the star sign ‘Taurus’.
Together, they form a clue.
The combination (Menge) of the word and the ending gives a clue as to the language.

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

[..]
But what if Google read it as ‘datis’, which is actually two words: ‘dat is’?

You (or Google) would enter a world of pain.

"datis" is a form of dare, "geben"/giving, you see it at Caesars page.

"dat" is 3rd person singular, "er/sie/es gibt" / he gives.

But "is" can mean "derjenige" / the one, 
as well as 2nd pers. singular of "ire"= gehen / to go -- "du gehst" / you go.

I think you also checked those on frag-caesar.

So, "dat is" may translate to "er gibt derjenige"(?) or "er gibt du gehst"(??), which is both quite garbage.

Better don't cut those words. 
The same for this one:

Let’s assume that ‘aiin’ is ‘utis’, which means ‘to use’.
Wouldn’t it be possible that ‘ain’ is the split version of ‘utis’ – ‘ut is’? Or the other way round.
Or that ‘adis’ simply becomes ‘ad is’.
From a cryptological point of view.

"ut" and "is" have immediately different meanings when you cut "utis" into 2 parts.

So you mean 8 and 9 are symbols for T- and -us of Taurus?
That's another cliff of your theory:
-us and -um are not really similar, they can mark the difference between nominative and accusative of male nouns, or even -um is indicating a neutrum (nominative) of a noun.
If that "doesn't matter", you will randomly change between subjects or objects of sentences by "choosing" -us or -um.
"Writing" Latin this way will completely destroy the content of a text to unrecognizability.
I don't think this was the intention of VMS' author(s).

But your conclusion about cryptological aspects is wrong:
this is not opening a wider field of "Latin possibilities": in fact, it reduces drastically the chance of VMS written with any Latin intention.
Those few problems above show the strong need for clear precision in Latin texts.
By the time of VMS, Latin existed already for ~2,000 years and was completely developed ; any author in Latin, even thoose with "dialects" or kitchen maidens, knew quite well about the do's and don'ts of this language.

Latin is rather complex by it's full-grown nature, while we have no striking idea about the complexity of VMS and it's source language.
Voynichese does not provide the structure of Latin at all.
It's not Latin.

[Aga Tentakulus]

OK, I understand your arguments.
In your view, the grammar in Latin is too far removed from what is possible in VM for it to be based on Latin.
So I’ll leave it at that for now.

On the other hand:
There is no German basis, because the grammar does not match that of this text.

«Am Moorgnd, nuch im Maannischiin (wen nuch dr Maann schiint), geid dr Puir an ds Maad (San meejn). Zi Säggschän (Um säggschi) weckt r schini Froiw us hertm Schlaaf. Schi schtreeld schich, tretschud ds Haar und geid imbriin inn fiischtrn (fiischtrri) Chäldr gan Aichn, Chees und Härdepfl ®reichn. Dernaa reisudsch (grächudsch) ds Früäschtuck (früher: ds Niächtrru). Schi trüchnd Milchkaffee und ässnd Aichnbrood dr zuä (Brood und Aichn drzuä). De faad d streng Arbeit vam Heiwun (d streng Heiwärarbeit) aan. Mu muäs zeerscht d Madä zettn, speetr zämmrächu(n), illeggn und in dr Schiir mumm bid dr Gablun zrzettn. Widr Aabnd heicht dr Maan ä Riggchorb (äs Rrääf, ä Rriggablun) än d Aggslun und Seid imbruif uf d Alpu(n). Da ischt nuch Seng Uistag. D Murmdä pfiiffund, d Alpuroosn bliäjnd schoon, abr äs hed nuch Loiwischnee inn Gräbmi (inn Gräbun, älter: inn Chrachun) (wörtlich übertragen: abr äs liggnd nuch Rräschtä va Lloiwinun inn Gräbun); wan äs hed im Wintr vil und of gschniid und giguxud. Da obmäna iss jetz flott (hipsch)! Dr Puir ischt abr miädä choon und setzd schich äs Schutzlin ufn Vorschtuäl (ufn Baich) fr z liiwän und äs Pfüffätlin z rreikn.»

30 kilometres of the same text

«Am Morget, we nu der Maanet schiint, geit der Püür uf d Matta fer ga z määje. Ds Heiw ischt jetz ripfs. Äm säggschi weckt är schiini Fröw, wa nu teif gschlaafe het. Schi sträälet ds Haar, macht en Tschügge und geit de ine finschter Chäuwer embri. Schii geit da ga Äiche, Chääs und Häärpfel reiche und grächet de iner Chuchi ds Früeschtuck. Schii triichent Miuchkaffe und ässent Äichebrot derzüe. Dernaa faad d schwäär Heiwerarbeit a. Zeerscht mües me ga d Made woorbe, dernaa ga zämmeräche und de ds Heiw in d Schiir trääge und da wider zette. Gäge Abed nimmt der Püür d Tschiffera uf de Rigg und geit uf d Aupa embrüf. Da obena isch nu Langsi. D Murmete pfiiffent, d Auperoose bliejent schoo, aber ine Gräbe liggent nu Räschte va Löwine; äs het im Winter e Hüüfe gschnit und aupot ggugset. Hibsch isch es jetzt hie obena. Der Püür ischt aber mieda. Är setztschi nu es Schutzji ufs Bäichji fer z kirme und es Piiffetji z röüke.»

[cencei]

Not wanna complain, but the audacious attempt to use Google Translate to make up for a complete lack of Latin knowledge would go right into the slop bucket nowadays... and it probably belongs there, to show that it's not about LLMs, but about competent usage of algorithms in general. With great power comes great responsibility...

The google algo is correcting utter nonsense into ... well, something (mostly by leaving out all nonsensical parts) and makes the user believe they are somehow magically competent. Nobody is at fault, but still we probably should stop doing that. You wouldn't sift through your substitution cipher with nothing but an Old Church Slavonic dictionary, and just list the words you found, then proclaim you deciphered the Voynich, right? Well, google translate is not even a dictionary. It's worse.

Maybe as a rule of thumb: If your translation is based on something that a magic black box (digital or cardboard) and/or Excitant Spirit told you, it might not be that reliable after all.

[Aga Tentakulus]

Just to make it clear once again.
1. This isn’t about ‘Agas’ Latin’, but rather a logical system.
2. I never said it was Latin; I said that Latin forms the basis.
3. I’ve known for years that I’m not allowed to use Google in that way.

The realisation.
Latin is the basis of many languages: Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, etc. But there are translators for these.
Other languages based on Latin – Ladin, Lombard, Rhaetian, Friulian, Venetian, etc. – there’s virtually nothing available for them. Certainly not from the 1400s.

The only option is to approach the language through Latin if you do not know which language it really is, and you have nothing else to go on.
Principle: It is better to have a little than nothing at all.

In future, the basis is Gothic.
The Goths migrated to northern Italy (AD 500) (Ostrogoths).
The Slavs around AD 700.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)