Talk:Rohonc Codex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

All discussion before redirection from Rohonczi_Codex was left at Talk:Rohonczi_Codex.

Ps* administrator help will be perhaps required. But plz do not delete history. Some old entries in Rohonczi Codex may be interesting and the policy states that history should stay.


Criticism[edit]

Shouldn't the article contain criticism of the alleged translations/interpretations? They seem rather far-fetched... 惑乱 分からん 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.12.40 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to build a roadmap to it's demystification (by Mart Vabar)[edit]

This section is basically original research, even if not committed to a single conclusion. It should be published elsewhere, e.g. in a blog or some forum devoted to the topic. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss the codex, only to report on theories that have been published elsewhere and have had at least some support by others. --187.106.62.53 (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) (Jorge Stolfi)[reply]

This is the same if / then game, just like the "Voynich" MS.

Place of origin

To start, we might ask, from where came this book to Hungarian soil. I am sceptical about the West, North or even Balcans and I am (less) sceptical about it as a local (magyar) artifact.

One better bet is the "Eurasian highway", steppe. You could take your horses, your house (tent, I mean) and your Book and just ride from Hungary to the Volga river and Mongolia ... or vice versa. To make it all clear, Hungary has a big history as a point of destination for refugees. These people could come from far and might have stunning stories to tell (just one example: Khazars). What if one of these refugees was, par example, The Last Nestorian Of Central Asia?

Another nice bet is: it could come from any corner of the Turkish Empire. This book is probably a bit younger, than its paper. So, take a world map of about AD1600+ ... The Ottoman Sultanate was quite big and Hungary was part of it. Again, this book might come from far. Again, we might keep in sight the Eastern Christians (maybe Assyrians), possibly leaving places like Persia, Iraq etc.

Just wanted to point out, we should look East and Southeast, too. Until now, everybody has ignored these directions and I bet, this is the main reason why we have almost zero results.

Writing system

If you just visually compare this writing with other right-to-left systems, then you might remember the Kokturk runes ("Orkhon alphabet" in Wikipedia). First, Hungary has it's own version of these "runes". When this manuscript was written, these nice letters were still used in Hungary. Second, we have quite many different versions of these "runes" between Hungary and Mongolia.

But helas, it just isn't that easy. Despite this Kokturk alphabet is a democratic system with no "hard rules", this text can't be just one of it's versions. But it might be affected by these.

So, we should compare it with other writing systems, which run from right to left. In the former Turkish Empire, there are quite many of these, OK? What if the author just didn't like to write cursive stuff and modified some normal alphabet for his own language, creating these rune-like letters?

It also looks, we could have "too many" different glyphs there. So, should it be compared with syllabaries or syllabic alphabets? Some glyphs in this book look like pictograms, too. Shoud we search immediately for pictographic, hieroglyphic writing systems (Tibet, China?). Well, par example beyond Caucasian nations and Central Asia there is normal to use Tamghas in communication; everyone everywhere could mix pictograms and text.

To check this way out:

Ask historians for anything like this, say, roughly between Caucasia, Volga river, Turkestan (incl. the Eastern or "Chinese" Turkestan), Tibet and Persia ( ...huh!! ).

Do we have any experts for "Nestorian" writings of about AD1600 and up?

More questions

Where between the 2 big religions could then still survive some Pagan religions? (affirmative: Mari, Chuvash, maybe Ersa-Moksha, maybe somewhere in Caucasia, probably in "eastern" Turkestan and Tibet.) Could this be possible "inside" of the Islamic world?

If we see a crescent here, another there, this doesn't mean it's about Islam every time. This is an older symbol. It is popular at Zoroastrians, probably also in Buddhism and Mani religion. This might look too far away in time and space, but you never know...

Could there be an Aramaic component?

Just visually, this might be related to Nestorian or some other "Syriac" (New-Aramaic) alphabet. Which languages might be written, using this glyphset? Are there any other known mixed alphabets (of Aramaic + something else)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.56.234 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How should INRI be written in Kokturk runes?

Here we have a reason to think, this might be a mix of Kokturk runes with some other writing system. If you take the inscription on the cross, probably the best scan available is

http://terembura.fw.hu/hunkonyv/roh/roh49.JPG

and just read the text from right to left in Kokturk runes, IMO you might get either KNKJ or YNKJ and I bet for the last one. So, the Latin INRI in some eastern interpretation?

Kokturk YNKJ Latin INRI
Y (Ü, Ö, if you have these in your alphabet) I
N N (must be similar to Latin "Nazarenvs")
K (like Khogan, Khan) R (Rex)
J (stands for a "strong I") I

PS this might be an even beter scan of the inscription on the cross: http://www.dacia.org/codex/original/optm_26.jpg

here, in both Kokturk and Aramaic (Kokturk is a "daughter" of Aramaic), you might get the 3rd letter as "R, like Rex" instead of "K, like Khan" ... (can't remember right now, which version of Syriac/Aramaic)

So,should we drop the Kokturk (which was probably no more a living system at about AD1600) and take some eastern version of Syriac/Aramaic? This might be a reasonable step. But Aramaic might be just one component of this. Where should we look for other parts?

Probably anywhere with Nestorian communities about 400 years ago. Persia, Kurdistan, India, maybe Central Asia and Tibet. Btw, some glyphs in Roh.Cod. really feature similarities with some Brahmi-descendant writing systems.

But these territorires are huge, it's too difficult to make serious opinions about the language. If it uses just some Aramaic characters, so it can't probably be Aramaic, OK? Some illustrations have some steppe feeling, could it belong to the Turco-Tataric world? Well, the Turco-Tataric culture was often something of mainstream back then, but this stuff is strange and different. Again, a "normal" background for this book might be: a surviving, but later forgotten small community of ancient Nestorian world. Which languages did the Nestorians speak, after all? Probably quite many. Are there histories written about Nestorianism?


How is INRI in Achaemenid Aramaic?

I found a copy of a table with different alphabets. http://pichostonline.com/u/080818/8c8bd5f05e.jpg There is a certain Achaemenid Aramaic and this glyphset looked like something between Aramaic and Kokturk. So, in this alphabet I got "our" inscription http://www.dacia.org/codex/original/optm_26.jpg as "ÖNRJ" (the first letter is "o-umlaut" and the last one probably "yod"). This is the best match with Latin INRI yet. But I can't be absolutely sure, if the upper left part of "yod" on that copy is 100% same or just something similar, it's quite little.

Well, there are almost 2000 years between the Achaemenid Empire and "our" book. Should we look for later versions of Aramaic with similar features? An easy "key" is probably a "bow" or ")" as "N". In the same table http://pichostonline.com/u/080818/8c8bd5f05e.jpg we have the "Achaemenid Aramaic", 2 Kokturk versions (the second of these is "Issyk" of course) and "Parth", using ")" as "N". Let's open http://www.proel.org/index.php?pagina=alfabetos/parto scroll down and there we have many alphabets (Avroman, Pahlevi, Aramea Elefantine) with "N" and "R" of "our" inscription... but no vowels ... did they use vowels sometimes?


Some numerals?

in http://www.dacia.org/codex/original/optm_14.jpg we have 3 labels where the text might begin with numerals 1, 2, 3 (remember to count and read from right to left). If so, the numeral 1 is not very different from the same numeral in estrangelo (a version of syriac-aramaic), while II and III are made of vertical lines, like Roman numerals. Elsewhere in text we meet even bigger groups of vertical lines, par example IIIII and IIIIIII are not rare at all. Btw, in all 3 labels the next 2 glyphs (after the numerals) are the same. Might this be translated as "1. rule", "2. rule", "3. rule" (or day) ... or is it too early to make any opinions?


Thinking about the possible language

Since this is written on Italian paper, it might be reasonable to "keep" as westward as possible. Might there be enough place for such stuff in Levant? Par example Maronite Christians in Lebanon once were speakers of Aramaic dialects and they still use Aramaic as liturgical language. If we think about a (hypothetical) isolated Christian community, where the everyday language is changing from Aramaic to something else, could there appear such a book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.1 (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To do?

If anybody has too much time: maybe he might look for more new-Aramaic (Syriac) numerals in this text? For examples you might look at http://www.proel.org/img/alfabetos/mandeo6.gif but these are of course quite cursive while "our" book is not. Also, every feature of "our" pictures might be compared with "eastern" iconography.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.1 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

The numeral as comonly called arabic or hindu arabic are 'five trees' numbers. Five as 5 and tree not as tree, one can think about 3 as berg|grab or gora's to get 5 gora'ns. To undenstand the whole rbus: if you know how to orto-graph envelope just add to it 'old egyptian 10' as /\. If you understand it, for nice confirmation verify how hand of Nicolaus Copernicus ortographed the numbers. If not, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rohonc Codex tmp?[edit]

Isn't Rohonc Codex tmp the exact same article? Why is it repeated? ʄ!•¿talk? 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it takes a little commen sense to know that the indian decoding of the script is absolutely fake! eg, baghwan - means god in hindi, but the characters rep. god in the script are different , not even resembling each other that singh guy must be laughing so hard that he must have peed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.40.229 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translations from the Romanian wiki[edit]

As it was instructed by the Translate tag, I translated a couple of relevant sentences from the corresponding Romanian wiki page. They formed a part of section "Language and script", subsection "Daco-Romanian hypothesis". terminus technicus 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Heretic Version Of Biblical Textures[edit]

Is it possible that the Rohonc Codex is a heteric version of biblical texts, enciphered to be hidden from the upcoming power of the inquisition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.172.59.47 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5/\[edit]

'#s' nie arabskie a rawskie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6e23:4a5d:60ff:fe32:8309 (talk) 00:49, January 25, 2016

OstromirovoEvangelie_1056.pdf pg 174 right-up CR script; point here higher resolution scan plz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rohonc_Codex&oldid=1210100649"