21-05-2020, 04:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-05-2020, 05:11 PM by LisaFaginDavis.)
Since I'm not a linguist I am totally unqualified to comment on the linguistic analyses presented above, other than to say thank you to Marco for diving in. A few other remarks:
1) I think it is important to remember that there is very little text written by Scribe 5 in comparison to the others, and so we may have to be cautious when drawing conclusions based on an analysis of the work of that scribe;
2) Because the pharmacological bifolium 88/89 is nested in the botanical bifolium 87/90, I suspect that both are misbound. 87/90 almost certainly belongs in the earlier botanical section (in spite of its unusual format) and 88/89 with the other pharmacological section (99-102). Bifolia 93/96 (by Scribe 1) and 94/95 (Scribe 3) are likely misbound as well.
3) I would be interested to learn if anything interesting results from analyzing the Scribe 3 bifolium 58/65 alongside 94/95 (also Scribe 3).
I have some thoughts about the staining and rebinding and misordering, but I'll save those for a different thread...
1) I think it is important to remember that there is very little text written by Scribe 5 in comparison to the others, and so we may have to be cautious when drawing conclusions based on an analysis of the work of that scribe;
2) Because the pharmacological bifolium 88/89 is nested in the botanical bifolium 87/90, I suspect that both are misbound. 87/90 almost certainly belongs in the earlier botanical section (in spite of its unusual format) and 88/89 with the other pharmacological section (99-102). Bifolia 93/96 (by Scribe 1) and 94/95 (Scribe 3) are likely misbound as well.
3) I would be interested to learn if anything interesting results from analyzing the Scribe 3 bifolium 58/65 alongside 94/95 (also Scribe 3).
I have some thoughts about the staining and rebinding and misordering, but I'll save those for a different thread...
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
