19 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2018
  2. Aug 2018
    1. This text analysis that it contains words written in hebrew and deciphering of the first sentence of the text using hebrew translation seems to align with what this author is saying about the text being passed down through the family.

      She made recommendations to the priest, man of the house and me and people.

      [Source] (https://hyp.is/GB7sZKjvEeidoGeGo8L6jA/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mysterious-manuscript-decoded-computer-scientists-ai-a8180951.html)

    1. Comments, questions, suggestions? Your feedback is welcome.

      Sukhwant Singh's analysis here seems to fit with a lot of other's partial analysis/observations such as multiple characters representing the same character, certain characters only appearing at the end of words etc. It seems quite compelling. The dates however, are a century too early although that does not necessarily dispel his theory that it is written in Landa Khojki.

    2. Many "words" differ by only one character and are found in each other's vicinity

      This might suggest the same thing as Tiltman's analysis in that a single character may take several forms.

    3. Tiltman treats f as a variant form of k and p as a variant form of t

      When learning that there were over 100 characters used in the manuscript my first thought was that perhaps variations of a character were used to represent the same character.

    4. Speaking generally, each character behaves as if it has its own place in an 'order of precedence' within words; some symbols such as o and y seem to be able to occupy two functionally different places.

      This is very interesting. It seems to suggest that each word may be scrambled based on the characters used.

    1. Here is a copy of the full manuscript.

    2. The text seems to be split into four parts (based on the drawings); botanicals, astrological charts, women bathing, and what appears to be recipes. For this reason it's theorized that the Voynich Manuscript is an encoded medical book.

    3. Both the mineral pigments used in the paint as well as the large and consistent quality of the parchment indicates the text would have cost quite a bit of money to produce.

    4. The Voynich Manuscript has not been deciphered despite people dedicating their entire lives to the challenge. Even modern deciphering computerized methods have not picked up a pattern.

    5. Interestingly, the drawings of some of the plants seem to show cellular level detail. The first microscope didn't exist until centuries later.

    6. The Voynich Manuscript was carbon dated to 1404-1430. The dovetail wall in one of the drawings given the time period indicates the author probably lived in Italy as that's the only known place during that time period with that style of architecture.

  3. Aug 2017
  4. idhmcmain.tamu.edu idhmcmain.tamu.edu
    1. much spoken of while it was handed about with a certain air of secrecy

      Barbauld points to a work by Horace Walpole that was popular when circulated as a manuscript but "neglected" after it was published. It isn't pornographic, but it is about maternal incest.

  5. Mar 2017
    1. copying a manuscript of this kind proceeded at the rate of about one (two-sided) folio per day; pecia rentals typically lasted one week and involved about four folios.
  6. May 2016
    1. 0

      Questa parte del manoscritto non contiene il testo di FGrHist 104, ma la vita di Apolonnio di Filostrato. Liuzzo 2015

    2. [] αἰτησάμενος

      The text is broken at the beginning. See Liuzzo 2015 for an explanation of this.

  7. Sep 2015
    1. This page, presented as a series of questions, is intended to help prevent that abstraction. It is also intended to remind the reader that although these items are currently being viewed digitally they exist in the physical world as very real objects and that both the decisions made and the means by which they are interpreted should reflect that.
https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3AManuscript
hypothes.is
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-26
132713
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ATGOPBJCXKGHM35IG4MM5W3BLYLERXDS
<urn:uuid:29378116-9634-4980-b8e7-ded033f11218>
2019-06-17T22:44:36Z
104.20.215.15
text/html
sha1:KTXQGOQH3FMQTZIEWBHJRK44CDRFNHMX
<urn:uuid:a8cd25be-163b-4df0-91f0-54ef1ceb8d52>
https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3AManuscript
response
<urn:uuid:7044de30-1a02-4c51-8b4f-8185fa091d2e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-147-89-155.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/