16-09-2016, 11:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 16-09-2016, 11:43 PM by -JKP-.
Edit Reason: fixed typos
)
(16-09-2016, 07:57 PM)farmerjohn wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2016, 07:27 PM)Emma May Smith wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Can you tell me how you discovered the text was in Latin?
That was a long and painful way
To be serious, one day I asked myself what if q is really q (both occur always* in the beginning of the word)? Then o, which always* follows q, is u(v) and language is probably Latin or English. As frequenly noted by -JKP- there are a lot of abbreviations from medieval Latin and the author certainly knew Latin very well. So should be Latin. Ok. Great. But o is u/v? Ha-ha.
I assume you mean this is the logic you followed to get where you are now, but I want to make it clear for those who might not be regulars and haven't followed the history of my posts, that I was not the one who stated it "should be Latin" but rather your reasoning that brought you to the place where you feel it should be Latin.
Where I stand on this is that many of the shapes are definitely Latin, without a doubt.
What language underlies the text could be many things (natural language, constructed language, carefully structured gibbish (but not random text)) but I have never asserted it to specifically be Latin. I am not discounting the possibility, but it's not my main line of research and I wouldn't want someone to misread your statement as originating from me.
Now, to get back to your idea that it should be Latin based on the preponderance of Latin characters, take a good look at Yulia May's analysis of the text. It is along the same line as you are investigating. You can find it on this thread:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.