- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
- ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-JKP- > 18-11-2016, 09:30 AM
I just had a thought while looking at your examples, Wladimir.
There are a couple of places in the VMS where this occurs... (the 4o with the Latin overline abbreviation/apostrophe shown bottom-right for 90r1):
And then I was thinking how odd 115r and 80r look (the 4o with the double line).
If I had seen only 115r, I would be tempted to dismiss it as a mistake or stray penstroke, but 80r looks more deliberate and then it occurred to me, does it mean something different from the overline? or is it a way of incorporating the overline into the character to make it less obvious that it's an overline? -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 19-11-2016, 12:30 AM
In 80r, which line is that?
Overline aside, I think that what Wladimir posted is an important observation on how q is actually composed. It is, actually, a combination of a vertical (with a short ascender) and a c-like shape with a long horizontal tail. This is clearly seen in e.g. f80r, line 11, vor 2 (qokey), where the two components are disjoint, because the scribe was in a hurry, or in line 2 (qotain) where the ascender is at an angle different from what the c-shape follows.
Next, the gallows such as t or p can be decomposed into the following: vertical + c-shape + tail modifier. The c-shape is apparently the same as in q, only one of the two tail modifiers is appended to it. The vertical, however, is different from that used in q. Here it does not have an ascender, and also it does not tend to slightly bend clockwise which is seen in many q's.
The vertical in q is close to one that is also seen in extended EVA &131; or &204; wherein it goes with a horizontal (appended or prepended, respectively). Note the characteristic slight bend clockwise. Although the short ascender is absent here. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-JKP- > 19-11-2016, 04:02 AM
(19-11-2016, 12:30 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In 80r, which line is that?
...
Anton, look at 115r, where there is an extra line connecting the 4 and the o (like a rung in a ladder). It's faint. Now look at 80r, the one next to it, same thing, but more deliberate and it's above the main stroke rather than below it.
Because there are two of them with an extra stroke, it struck me that maybe the scribe had some ideas about hiding the overline (an idea that may have been abandoned or used inconsistently). Or... it could mean something different from the overline.
It seems unlikely that someone creating a fraudulent/nonsense script would take the time to put in extra lines such as these. Fraud is all about creating something quickly so you can make money from it. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 19-11-2016, 12:45 PM
What line in the folio to look at? -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-JKP- > 19-11-2016, 02:50 PM
Here are some visual examples. It's probably easier to explain it this way...
In the first two, the scribe used a conventional Latin apostrophe (in Latin this usually stands for a missing "m" or "n"). In the second two there's an extra line between the 4 and the o.
When Wladimir posted the examples, it made me wonder whether those extra lines between the 4 and the o meant something different from the overlines or... if maybe the scribe was looking for a way to add the line without it being so obvious (putting it between the letters instead of above it, so it is less likely to be noticed):
![[Image: 4oLine.png]](http://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/4oLine.png)
-
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Davidsch > 19-11-2016, 07:46 PM
The text anomalies are very interesting, but really, let's not draw to conclusions from any visual presentation.
I can create visuals for any other letter and picture in the manuscript.
Placing them in a particular order will not suddenly "reveal" how a character has evolved. In particular not if the anomalies are not on the same page.
Nor does it show anything for other characters that resemble the anomalies! There is no founded basis for that.
It does show what could be possible with imagination and a graphic editor, but it certainly does not show any chronological or other logical sequencing for the characters. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-JKP- > 20-11-2016, 04:43 AM
(19-11-2016, 07:46 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The text anomalies are very interesting, but really, let's not draw to conclusions from any visual presentation.
I can create visuals for any other letter and picture in the manuscript.
Placing them in a particular order will not suddenly "reveal" how a character has evolved. In particular not if the anomalies are not on the same page.
Nor does it show anything for other characters that resemble the anomalies! There is no founded basis for that.
It does show what could be possible with imagination and a graphic editor, but it certainly does not show any chronological or other logical sequencing for the characters.
We can't make very many assumptions about chronological sequencing because:
1. We don't know the original intention as far as binding is concerned.
2. We don't know in which order the pages were written (many big projects like this one are not done in sequence).
For some things, if there is a significant evolution between consecutive pages on the same folio sheet, it might be possible to make some guesses about sequencing, but that happens rarely.
But I assumed it was obvious that we don't know the sequence. That doesn't mean we can't point out interesting patterns. In time, it might help sort out which marks are significant and which are not. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 20-11-2016, 04:27 PM
Hi Wladimir, it would be great if you specify not only folios, but also line numbers for your examples.