Thunderstorm’s water

evaporationThe terms of 82r page onal/onal98 – evaporation/condensation can be found on the next page with a similar image and a slight difference in spelling: onol/onol89, which can be read as ona / ona89. Is al = ol valid for other terms in the manuscript?
Another label on this page can be read, but in Latin this time. This is a top margin label « daiin oty »-taunobus.
This term is also found on page 99v: « obol taunobus ». The word can be interpreted from the verb tono: tonabas – imperfect sec. sing. or tonabis- future. Is the blue vortex water from a thunderstorm?
tonnere 99v
If my proposal to consider the word « obol » as the Coptic word ebol is correct, « obol taunobus » of 99v would be « from the thunderstorm »? Or « obol » means « water »?

Eau d’orage

Le couple des termes d’évaporation/condensation onal/onal98 de la page 82r se retrouve sur la page suivante avec une image similaire et une légère différence de graphie : onol/onol89, qu’on peut lire comme ona/ona89. Est-ce que al=ol est valable pour d’autres termes du manuscrit ?
Une autre étiquette de cette page peut être lue, mais en latin cette fois-ci. Il s’agit d’une étiquette de la marge supérieure «daiin oty». – taunobus. Ce terme se rencontre aussi sur la page 99v : «obol taunobus». Le mot peut être interprété à partir du verbe tono : tonabas – tu tonnais ou bien tonabis- tu tonneras. Le tourbillon bleu serait de l’eau provenant d’un orage ?
Si ma proposition de considérer le mot «obol» comme le mot copte ebol est juste, «obol taunobus» de 99v serait «provenant de l’orage» ? Ou bien «obol» veut dire « l’eau » ?

10 Commentaires

Classé dans Alphabet Voynich

10 réponses à “Thunderstorm’s water

  1. Ruby, if you will forgive my referring yet again to the conclusions drawn from my own work and material published some time ago, I’d suggest you hunt for terms used, between the tenth and mid-fourteenth centuries, for what we now describe as the ‘monsoons’.


  2. Also – there is no ‘joint work’ which involves me. I feel more sorry than not when another independent mind becomes ‘team-minded’, but others of course feel differently.


    • Diane, a research team exists even if it is not always accepted: those who specialize in imagery, those who like to calculate frequencies, those who try to read the text, those who are still looking for the code, those who like to supervise, and so on. What is missing, in my opinion, is a good collaboration which delays the emergence of the solution.


      • I understand. It is more difficult when everyone stays individual – but I think it best. ‘Group-think’ is rarely ‘true think’. What would be good is to have an inclusive blogroll so no-one is missed out.

        Aimé par 1 personne

  3. Linda Snider

    I actually prefer the team-minded approach, commonalities in our diverse understanding of the manuscript will likely lead to better ends than maintenance of our own irreconcilable stances. In this case, the commonality i see among the terms thunderstorm, water, and monsoon, provided by the two of you, is the idea of torrent, flood, or current, which i think might be involved with this page also. We likely see the imagery differently, though, i do not see a whirlwind, although i understand what you are referring to. I think others have also suggested a and o equivalency, and i feel that may be the case as well, although i don’t have a strong case for it. I like your comparison diagram, I see commonalities there too.

    Aimé par 1 personne

  4. It is enough that each individual knows what others think and is willing to consider those ideas. This is possible if information isn’t deliberately hidden or lied about.

    With the formation of ‘group mentality’ people change – this is basic psychology. In a ‘group-think’ situation, individuals don’t dispute the leaders’ opinions; set aside their own standards and ethics to go along with the group; accept ‘tasks’ assigned to them instead of following their own line of research, and accept or reject information in keeping with ‘majority feeling’ as often as by weight of evidence… The Friedman groups didn’t manage to read a single word of the text, and d’Imperio’s summary of their ideas shows it riddled with errors including errors of logic, social bias and so on.

    On the other hand, and working alone for just two hours, Erwin Panofsky correctly dated the manuscript and probably gave it’s correct region of origin.

    Similarly, Philip Neal spoke with others but wouldn’t go in for the hierarchies of a ‘work-group’.

    Two hundred people may agree on something, but they may still be wrong. All that happens is that they refuse to believe any ‘outsider’ no matter what evidence is shown that the group-think position *is* wrong. Then you begin seeing real dishonesty creep in; people pretend that one of the group is responsible for every new insight – start to lie (often by omission) about where information came from. That can be really bad news for scholarship.


Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur la façon dont les données de vos commentaires sont traitées.