farmerjohn > 12-01-2018, 09:36 PM
(12-01-2018, 06:02 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-01-2018, 10:12 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Every word is correct Latin word (=acceptable by Whitaker's Words) with precision to declension, conjugation, etc. This is checked mechanically.
...
Many of the words in Whitaker's Words were not used in the Middle Ages or were extremely rare. Nor can most of these words be found in the tens of thousands of Latin books from late-15th, 16th, 17th centuries that have been digitized and are available online.
You took these words:
A. Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorus
to complete | explain/uncover/open | to jest | open/revealed | produce/beget | purtrid fluid, || ship-hand/bargeman | equally/ to the same degree | execorularum?? | bimanorus??
And translated them into this:
B. Finished with playful beginning open part of the drawing, trunk divided equally, painted in two colors
Even if all the words in Whitaker's Words were used in the Middle Ages, which isn't the case, I can't figure out how how you got from A to B. Some of them don't match their meanings and others are questionable. For example, it's a bit of a leap to interpret "bimanorus" as painted in two colors. Yes, bi is two and mano is to flow, but it could just as easily be a river flowing in two directions or something else.
It's also not entirely clear how you got from this:
Patrationellurum paraboli cupitorura copium (?) comanus
To this:
Want to (?) leaves of finished drawings
It's not just the individual words that are strange and unusual, the way they are combined is not at all typical of any Latin I have seen.
-JKP- > 12-01-2018, 10:41 PM
farmerjohn > 12-01-2018, 11:10 PM
(12-01-2018, 10:41 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, you mostly repeated the same definitions I mentioned upthread, but you didn't explain how you got from those words to the translations, which was really what I was more interested in.
farmerjohn wrote: "caudic.āri.ūrus - from caudex, "trunk of a tree". A wouldn't trust this interpretation too much, but there is another place where this translation looks plausible'
Actually, this one has a rational origin. Tree trunks were used to make boats, originally canoes. Similarly derived words later were applied to merchant ships, barges, and the bargemen who worked on them.
-JKP- > 13-01-2018, 04:04 AM
farmerjohn > 14-01-2018, 01:54 PM
-JKP- > 14-01-2018, 07:50 PM
Searcher > 14-01-2018, 08:19 PM
Quote:Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorusPatratum, apertum, partus, tabelli, aeque are real words in Latin and in some its variations.
farmerjohn > 14-01-2018, 09:47 PM
farmerjohn > 14-01-2018, 10:27 PM
(14-01-2018, 08:19 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.farmerjohn wrote:
Quote:Patratum aperium jocionum apertum partus tabelli, caudicariura aeque exec orularum bimanorusPatratum, apertum, partus, tabelli, aeque are real words in Latin and in some its variations.
The rest, although contain correct / existed roots, have incorrect word structure, which are hardly could exist.
The word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is a real word, but how you can explain the suffix -urus (-ura) in the word caudicariura? If you mean that the root is caudex (caudic-), and the suffixes are -ari-, -ura, there must be general rules of that language, recorded in some existed source, for that last morpheme. For example, for the mentioned word, I could find only one rational explanation, if it would be caudicariorum (plural genitive of caudicarius).
The same with the word execorularum. If it is a noun in genitive plural, which may be translated as an adjective (meaning the ends -arum and -orum of Latin), then the basical form of the word (noun) is execorula (non existed). For example, epistola or epistula - in genitive plural: epistolarum, epistularum, (meaning of messages). As well, there are no word bimanorus or, even, manorus, if it is not Toba-Batak, but manorum and bimanorum exist as (again) the plural genitive form of the words: manus and bimanus. Bimanus, in this case, means bimanous (meaning a human).
There is no conjunction or preposition in the sentence. Generally, the grammar structure of the sentence is wrong.
I think, you need to know.
Helmut Winkler > 15-01-2018, 10:06 AM
(14-01-2018, 07:50 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would really like to hear Helmut Winkler's opinion on your translations.
Thanks, JKP. Of course, it is not true Latin, not even medieval or bad Latin, it is something that partly sounds like Latin. I have given up commenting on the could-be Latin theories. The musa quote in the banana thread Rene has given is proper Latin of the time.
The real joke of the story is that Beinecke 408 probably IS a Latin text, but these brute force - methods with word lists or the statitstics approach of the cryptographers obviously don't work, there must be is another trick behind it all.
I