Re: VMs: The "key" f116v.1-2: a Latin Prayer to Virgin Mary

["J HALEY" <j.haley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Elmar

My comments are marked with *** below.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elmar Vogt" <elvogt@xxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 06 September 2005 15:22
Subject: Re: VMs: The "key" f116v.1-2: a Latin Prayer to Virgin Mary


>
>
> G. Damschen wrote:
> > Hello Elmar,
> >
> > Many thanks for your stimulating questions. I really appreciate it.
>
> You're more than welcome. I'm always game for a good argument.
>

*** To argue it is usually necessary to have access and a knowledge of the
areas
of concern to the researcher you are arguing with.

> >
> > As you I read "abta" in line 2. But "abta" is nothing but another
> > medieval Latin orthography for "apta", please see Lexicon manuale ad
> > scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis, ...
>
> Since it's not on my bookshelf, and since my Latin doesn't go much beyond
> "Si tacuisses...", I'll simply take your word for it.
>

*** From the Revised Medieval Latin Word List:

abt-, see also APT; obt-

> >
> > You ask why the author uses different signs for "s". I was thinking
> > about that, too. I could be that the verse contain a date (year):
> > - the capital "M" you mentioned at the end of line 1 is a sign for 1000
> > (Elmar, please look at the lettershapes in Cappelli, p. 417; these "M"s
> > look indeed somewhat like an "ai");
> > - "c" is a sign for 100;
> > - "x" is a sign for 10 (please see Cappelli, p. 419, it's our "x");
> > - "v" is a sign for 5.
> >
> > Then we have: M + CCCC + XXXX + V= 1445.
>

*** This is indeed true. Well in my copy of Capelli anyway.

> Well, it still doesn't make sense to me. Why the extraneous "M", which
> breaks the poem's rhythm (while you used that rhythm to determine the
poem's
> content)? Why not just writing one of the "M"s in the poem itself in a
> different manner? After all, IIUC, this is what the author did with the
S/X
> shift to create the hidden number, right?
>
> >
> > You supposes that lines 1/2 (as I read and interpret them) and lines 0/3
> > have different meanings, but are by the same hand. Therefore you
> > concludes: Lines 1/2 cannot be a Latin prayer. Two answers:
>
> "Cannot" is a hard term. I'm simply not convinced it is a Latin prayer.
>

*** I am often convinced on this list that only the original author coming
back
from the grave and hitting researchers over the head with the Voynich
Manuscript would convince most people of anything.

> >
> > (1) AFAIK there is no shared reading or interpretation of lines 0/3 so
> > far. Thus we cannot play lines, which we do not understand, off against
> > lines, which make a good sense. Vice versa,  I would say we should read
> > lines 0/3 in the light of lines 1/2.
>
> Fair enough. So how do you reconcile "so nim gas mich" with the latin
prayer?
>

*** I find Gregors work very interesting. I for one would encourage anyone
that has
any news light to shed on any part of the VMS.

> >
> > (2) Lines 0/3 obviously contain Germanic words. What makes you so sure
> > that these lines are written by the same person?
>
> The style of handwriting, ink and quill, and for line 3 the fact that the
> flow of the line fits 1/2 nicely.
>
> >Line 3 seems to be
> > written by someone who tried to translate lines 1/2.
>
> Why would somebody want to translate a latin poem into Voynichese?
>

*** Maybe because he was ONE of the original authors.

> >
> > You also presupposes that the Voynich MS is enciphered and that
> > therefore it is not suitable that we have a Latin prayer on its end.
>
> I wouldn't say it's inconceivable, but I'd expect it to stand out more
> prominently -- not hidden between Voynichese lines...
>
>  > ...
> So, why are you so sure that this text is
> > enciphered or encoded?
>
> I'm not sure if I understand -- what would be the alternative to the VM
> being enciphered?
>

*** If you study Capelli in any depth you would then see the possibility.

> Obviously, somebody went through great lengths to obscure the VM content.
> So, either it is a hoax (in which case looking for content is moot), or
> there is an underlying meaning.
>
> Or are you talking about the f116v? It's well possible that the better
part
> of it is plaintext, I just don't think it's the plaintext you think you
have
> found -- it appears a bit far-fetched to me.
>
>  >
> So, again, why playing a text (if any) which we
> > absolutely do not understand off against Latin verses we can understand?
>
> > ... stand on the ground of serious
> > science (Latin grammar, Latin vocabulary, and shared theological
> > assumptions).
>
> Being a physicist, I must admit I never thought of grammar as a science...
>

*** Gravitation is the physicists Voynich Manuscript. There is a part
missing in
e=mc2 too.

> Cheers,
>
> Elmar

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list