Searcher:
Yes, the problem in referring "multos" to "portas" is that "multos" is masculine while "portas" is feminine. The correct expression in accusative would have been "multas portas".
But that could be a mistake. Searching across google books, I find the expression "multos portus", which is correct neither, is it?
However, I cannot see the penultimate letter of "mult*s" to be "a" even remotely. The shape of "a" is quite consistent through all its occurrences in f116v, except for the penultimate "a" in "oladabas", but neither of the two looks like the letter in "mult*s" even remotely. I can't see it even as an "a" later corrected into something else. For this letter I see two possibilities.
My first choice would be a pen-slipped "o". Sometimes (but not always) the "o" shape in the VMS is comprised of two halves - which is especially true for the Voynichese o. The "o" in "oladabas" is an example of a plain text "o" of such kind.
My second choice would be an "e". This guy writes "e" as modern "c" (see in "cere/tere". Perhaps in this case he was not satisfied with the shape of "e" that he put down, and "improved" it to look more like "e". As such, the "e" in "ubren" approaches to what we see in "mult*s" .
"Multes" would not be a word form of "multum" no more, but second person present conjunctive of "multo" (to punish).
For "portas" (which is inscribed far less ambiguously), two possibilities exist as well.
The first one is plural accusative of "porta" (gate). The "gate" would theoretically fit into the context of "anchiton" (which is substance for to cover gates).
However, another valid reading is second person present indicative of "porto" (to carry). That's the way that Damschen explores.
One can note that the abundance of second person forms in the discourse, together with the explicit "te", strongly suggests that the spell is an "address" or "invocation" of some kind, whether to "anchiton" or otherwise.
I will post about "**** *ere" later.
That was the first thing that I suggested back then when "anchiton" was demystified, but, apparently, noone has ready sources at hand. There is an old book by Anderson called "Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations", and its modern edition is priced at only $10 on Amazon...
That would be a weird ruler, typically the direction is quite the opposite.
Yes, the problem in referring "multos" to "portas" is that "multos" is masculine while "portas" is feminine. The correct expression in accusative would have been "multas portas".
But that could be a mistake. Searching across google books, I find the expression "multos portus", which is correct neither, is it?
However, I cannot see the penultimate letter of "mult*s" to be "a" even remotely. The shape of "a" is quite consistent through all its occurrences in f116v, except for the penultimate "a" in "oladabas", but neither of the two looks like the letter in "mult*s" even remotely. I can't see it even as an "a" later corrected into something else. For this letter I see two possibilities.
My first choice would be a pen-slipped "o". Sometimes (but not always) the "o" shape in the VMS is comprised of two halves - which is especially true for the Voynichese o. The "o" in "oladabas" is an example of a plain text "o" of such kind.
My second choice would be an "e". This guy writes "e" as modern "c" (see in "cere/tere". Perhaps in this case he was not satisfied with the shape of "e" that he put down, and "improved" it to look more like "e". As such, the "e" in "ubren" approaches to what we see in "mult*s" .
"Multes" would not be a word form of "multum" no more, but second person present conjunctive of "multo" (to punish).
For "portas" (which is inscribed far less ambiguously), two possibilities exist as well.
The first one is plural accusative of "porta" (gate). The "gate" would theoretically fit into the context of "anchiton" (which is substance for to cover gates).
However, another valid reading is second person present indicative of "porto" (to carry). That's the way that Damschen explores.
One can note that the abundance of second person forms in the discourse, together with the explicit "te", strongly suggests that the spell is an "address" or "invocation" of some kind, whether to "anchiton" or otherwise.
I will post about "**** *ere" later.
Quote:Has anyone looked for the Gog Magog story in Alexander romances?
That was the first thing that I suggested back then when "anchiton" was demystified, but, apparently, noone has ready sources at hand. There is an old book by Anderson called "Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations", and its modern edition is priced at only $10 on Amazon...
Quote:Ruler Oladabas, you carry many men out of prison
That would be a weird ruler, typically the direction is quite the opposite.