Voynich Manuscript
Both the reading article and lecture discusses about the possible origin of the "Voynich manuscript", handwritten book written on the velum since the text presented on the books are very obscure and cannot be decoded till now. While the author mentions three different individuals as the possible creator of the manuscripts grounding on the several reasons, the speaker challenges the propositions made by an author. In his opinion, the mentioned creators by author are false interpretations for diverse perspectives which will be discussed in following paragraphs.
The author, in the reading, begins by mentioning that manuscript was the genuine work by Anthony Ascham (physician and botanist): description of the medicinal plants resemble the depiction of the plants on it. However, the lecturer confutes the claim made by author mentioning that, he was ordinary physicists and scientists lacking in the original idea. Thus, the information about the particular plant was also referred to different sources. Additionally, he says that Ascham was not capable of reproducing such complicated codes as presented on the manuscript.
The writer further asserts that Edward Kelly (well know for its uncanny behavior) produced such bogus manuscript to obtain affluent from the rich people stating that it evinces magical power. The speaker questions the author's position that text on the manuscript were carefully printed resembling it as the real code. Additionally, he points out that people, in the sixteenth century, were easy to fool by other means--for example, use of simple other books, so it was not necessary to invest such time in producing the manuscript with meticulous details.
The reading article, finally, posits that Mr. Voynich was solely responsible for generating the counterfeit manuscript--may be due to the attractive deal at that time. As opposed to the author's statement, the lecturer argues that the consequences of dating technique (technique to determine age of the materials) suggested age of vellum pages and ink as almost 400 years old. Thus, he maintains that improbable for Voynich to acquire 400 year old ink, although he may have obtained the pages.
To summarize, the speaker and author hold opposite views on each of the claims to mark possible creator of "The Voynich manuscript" which makes difficult for both of them in finding common ground.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-20 | Zmx_109 | 80 | view |
| 2023-02-13 | zaid | 73 | view |
| 2023-01-19 | nikki07hung | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-11 | lucy_Taiwan | 81 | view |
| 2022-10-25 | _sta | 78 | view |
- Communal Online and Traditional Printed Encyclopedia 80
- Migration of Dinosaurs to South 73
- Authenticity of Coins 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment doing things they like to do rather than doing things they should do Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 90
- Possible Application of Airships 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 469, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rent sources. Additionally, he says that Ascham was not capable of reproducing su...
^^
Line 5, column 555, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the manuscript with meticulous details. The reading article, finally, posits tha...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 187, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ve deal at that time. As opposed to the authors statement, the lecturer argues that the...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 258, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: technique
... argues that the consequences of dating technique technique to determine age of the materials sugge...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, may, so, thus, well, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2037.0 1373.03311258 148% => OK
No of words: 373.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46112600536 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99689695695 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 145.348785872 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595174262735 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 419.366225166 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 45.3481430891 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.5 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6428571429 21.698381199 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78571428571 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274406077684 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0925048591157 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0730543210659 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15422405455 0.162205337803 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364616002032 0.0443174109184 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.3 8.42419426049 122% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 63.6247240618 200% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.