116v

[ReneZ]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. interprets "an" as "an[te]": I should have remembered that.
His transcription and translation are well thought and are consistent with the marginal illustrations.

His presentation was the first that had all of the following:
- a sound argumentation that all items of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. belong together
- a sound argumentation that this was written by the Voynich scribe, or at least one of them if there were more
- a complete reading by someone with competence in this type of handwriting
- a more or less consistent interpretation as a recipe

The main argument that this was from the (an) original scribe is that the two words in Voynichese seem to
be an integral part of the text, which were left in "code".
At the time it was very convincing. Certainly more convincing than anything I had ever read about this part
of the MS. In the mean time, I certainly doubt parts of the reading and the interpretation, because it did not
take into account the clear parallels with spells as found by several people and documented by Ellie and JKP
(links on one of the earlier entries in this thread). Helmut already disagreed with parts of the reading in the earlier
discussion in the mailing list.

From my understanding the reading and the interpretation are not completely independent from each other.
From a first coarse reading one should be able to decide the time frame, rough region and language. Many details
can only be properly read by knowing what is being said.
Having such a short piece makes it extra difficult.

While I find that the comparison MS that I pointed out in an earlier post has rather similar handwriting, there is a
vast difference between the two, in that I can basically read the text of that MS without any trouble, which
is not the case for f116v.

I have this vague recollection that 'an' could also be some sort of a conjunction in Latin, but I may be mixing
things.....