- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
- ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 14-12-2016, 09:09 PM
Quote:In addition, bench with an apostrophe (when the bottom of the left leg - is the beginning of apostrophe Figure 16, 17) you can transcribe as "bh".
I'm not sure in that. IMO, this is not b, but just a careless apostrophe. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Wladimir D > 15-12-2016, 05:28 AM
(14-12-2016, 09:09 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:In addition, bench with an apostrophe (when the bottom of the left leg - is the beginning of apostrophe Figure 16, 17) you can transcribe as "bh".
I'm not sure in that. IMO, this is not b, but just a careless apostrophe.
Anton. I did not want to approve it. It is only information for consideration. Because a bench with an apostrophe transcribed by "sh" - conditionally! We just got used to it. But not all the benches and "c" with an apostrophe can confidently as transcribed.
PS / THOMAS. As a by result of the search, another discovery in your piggy bank. On page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. no one "n" letters. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Wladimir D > 10-04-2017, 06:35 AM
-
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-JKP- > 10-04-2017, 11:09 AM
I think I have a possible explanation for why the "4" in "4o" is sometimes written with a straight line and sometimes with a softer edge (like a "c" shape).
In the late 1300s and early 1400s, the numbers styles were changing.
In the 1300s, they wrote the 7 like a mountain and the 4 like EVA-l. It was rounded. Gradually, during the 15th and early 16th centuries, the 4 evolved into the 4 we know today, with straight angles but I have noticed, in a number of manuscripts created during the transition period, that some of the scribes who were writing the new-style 4 (the straight one), would occasionally revert to the old one. Sometimes they crossed it out and rewrote it, sometimes they straightened it, and sometimes they didn't bother and wrote both styles interchangeably.
So, if it's someone who learned old style (rounded), but adapted to the changing new style (straight), it's quite possible that they would occasionally slip and write it the way they learned it when they were younger.
I'm not saying the "4" is actually a 4, but since the VMS glyph is almost the same shape and written much the same way, the same habits of the hand might apply. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 10-04-2017, 01:56 PM
(10-04-2017, 11:09 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think I have a possible explanation for why the "4" in "4o" is sometimes written with a straight line and sometimes with a softer edge (like a "c" shape).
In the late 1300s and early 1400s, the numbers styles were changing.
In the 1300s, they wrote the 7 like a mountain and the 4 like EVA-l. It was rounded. Gradually, during the 15th and early 16th centuries, the 4 evolved into the 4 we know today, with straight angles but I have noticed, in a number of manuscripts created during the transition period, that some of the scribes who were writing the new-style 4 (the straight one), would occasionally revert to the old one. Sometimes they crossed it out and rewrote it, sometimes they straightened it, and sometimes they didn't bother and wrote both styles interchangeably.
So, if it's someone who learned old style (rounded), but adapted to the changing new style (straight), it's quite possible that they would occasionally slip and write it the way they learned it when they were younger.
I'm not saying the "4" is actually a 4, but since the VMS glyph is almost the same shape and written much the same way, the same habits of the hand might apply.
I'm quite sure that it is always meant to be "with a softer edge", no matter what it looks like (in many cases it does look lke that). The reason is that the "c-like" shape (с with prolonged curve) is also encountered in other combinations, not only in combination with a vertical which yields q. More than that, the first occurrence of this "c-prolonged" is not within a q, but within another shape (f1r, line 17). -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Linda > 11-04-2017, 06:52 AM
(10-04-2017, 06:35 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. under the blue paint is a hidden inscription. In the middle there is a symbol similar to an inverted "OMEGA", as on page f28v. This is followed by xxx = 30 (xxv=25)?
Could it be Ketu, or inverted Rahu symbol such as this one top left:
The second recipe also seems to have an inscription.
![[Image: bm90840_b11.jpg]](http://doormann.tripod.com/images/bm90840_b11.jpg)
![[Image: nodes.gif]](http://www.salagram.net/nodes.gif)
![[Image: image.jpg?q=f76v-344-811.6199951171875-98-86]](https://voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?q=f76v-344-811.6199951171875-98-86)
Rahu? -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Wladimir D > 24-05-2017, 12:52 PM
Maybe the symbol ∫ (f68r2) is an independent glyph? Then you can explain the non-standard writing of some gallows.
[font=Arial, sans-serif][/font]
-
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 09-06-2017, 04:28 PM
![[Image: image.jpg?q=f2r-1165-1354.7999877929688-94-50]](https://voynich.ninja/extractor/image.jpg?q=f2r-1165-1354.7999877929688-94-50)
f2r, line 10
the second apostrophe -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
VViews > 09-06-2017, 06:02 PM
(24-05-2017, 12:52 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Maybe the symbol ∫ (f68r2) is an independent glyph? Then you can explain the non-standard writing of some gallows.
This is very interesting indeed Wladimir D!
Especially in light of JKP's recent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the gallows... I would be curious to read JKP's opinion on this.
If there is mounting evidence that suggests gallows could in fact be two separate caracters ligatured together, that would really solidify the need for a new transcription system IMO. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
ReneZ > 09-06-2017, 06:33 PM
(09-06-2017, 06:02 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If there is mounting evidence that suggests gallows could in fact be two separate caracters ligatured together, that would really solidify the need for a new transcription system IMO.
I would like to point out that this is not so much an issue of transcription, but rather one of interpretation.
As long as the transcription has been done consistently, simple software tools can change single-character representations of the gallows into double-character representations.
The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (see especially You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) already represented gallows as character pairs.