1 hour ago
EggYK and others: I've been thinking a lot about everything we have all discussed here, about the month names. But I realized that no one has suggested an alternative explanation... I don't think, maybe I missed it, sorry... for the eclectic use of month names, including (if I have this right) Old French, Walloon, Latin, Germanic (and other?) forms.
So you all know my proposal, as in my last post, the "nut and bolt assortment" cause of this: That a forger, possibly Voynich, had at his disposal a great many languages, styles and forms... at hand, and also, many, presumably, in his head after having seen them "somewhere". And then, when wanting to write the month names simply drew from his experience, with little care and concern for the accuracy of them... I mean, to just "give an impression" of an old zodiac. I think this refects the general "loose" nature of the manuscript as whole, which never quite adheres to a standard set of lettering, styles, content from any particular source nor age.
OK, so that's me. But what of those who propose the Voynich is from the early 15th century? I would ask, what do you think caused this? And do you know of another example of this type of combination of multiple languages, notation, styles occurring elsewhere?
Do you think one 15th c. scribe knew these forms and used them for some reason? Do you think multiple scribes were penning these names, each individual writing in their own language and style?
I mean, how would others explain this, having rejected my own scenario? It may sound like a challenge, and there is an element of that of course... but I am really curious about this. I am often challenged, myself... of course, and really don't mind. It gets me thinking about problems and assets to my own ideas, and forces me to explore both reasons for some feature or another, and consider whether or not any ideas I have are viable or not. But it would be helpful to me to know how others explain the same features I am asked to explain, but in their alternate scenarios, such as 1420 Genuine Cipher Herbal.
Rich
So you all know my proposal, as in my last post, the "nut and bolt assortment" cause of this: That a forger, possibly Voynich, had at his disposal a great many languages, styles and forms... at hand, and also, many, presumably, in his head after having seen them "somewhere". And then, when wanting to write the month names simply drew from his experience, with little care and concern for the accuracy of them... I mean, to just "give an impression" of an old zodiac. I think this refects the general "loose" nature of the manuscript as whole, which never quite adheres to a standard set of lettering, styles, content from any particular source nor age.
OK, so that's me. But what of those who propose the Voynich is from the early 15th century? I would ask, what do you think caused this? And do you know of another example of this type of combination of multiple languages, notation, styles occurring elsewhere?
Do you think one 15th c. scribe knew these forms and used them for some reason? Do you think multiple scribes were penning these names, each individual writing in their own language and style?
I mean, how would others explain this, having rejected my own scenario? It may sound like a challenge, and there is an element of that of course... but I am really curious about this. I am often challenged, myself... of course, and really don't mind. It gets me thinking about problems and assets to my own ideas, and forces me to explore both reasons for some feature or another, and consider whether or not any ideas I have are viable or not. But it would be helpful to me to know how others explain the same features I am asked to explain, but in their alternate scenarios, such as 1420 Genuine Cipher Herbal.
Rich