08-10-2019, 05:06 PM
09-10-2019, 03:58 PM
I'll happily take praise wherever it comes. ;-)
05-01-2024, 11:25 AM
I am looking to compile a copy of what I term the Lvoynich. This is a shortened form of the Voynich manuscript with all pages that don't contain labels removed. In addition all non-label continuous text and associated images should be removed.
Why would you want to do that?
It is a way of one focusing one's attention on Labels and not being distracted by everything else. I have for some time believe that understanding labelese is the simplest and best step to understanding Voynichese and this will motivate that
Why would you want to do that?
It is a way of one focusing one's attention on Labels and not being distracted by everything else. I have for some time believe that understanding labelese is the simplest and best step to understanding Voynichese and this will motivate that
08-01-2024, 09:07 PM
In the approach to Voynichese I have been pursuing, the LABELS become of special interest. It has long been observed that ‘Labelese’ is somewhat different to the running text. This needs to be explained. Why are labels different?
I propose that the Voynich text has been generated from two keywords, verbum potentiae, namely CHOLDAIIN and QOKEEDY. In short, I propose that the creator of the text has set up these two terms as coinciding opposites, and the text arises out of their interaction.
In the manuscript, this is being presented as discourse between the terrestrial and celestial nymphs. But there is also another (earlier) framework: the movement of ideas from east to west.
The model for this is the transfer of sanctity from Jerusalem to local sites in Europe (Italy) made necessary by the closing of the pilgrimage routes at the end of the Middle Ages.
This, I argue, is what we see in the foldout Voynich map. It is a map concerning the imposition of the (symbolic, sacred) geography of the Holy Land upon a local, north Italian landscape. The focus of this transfer is the Holy Sepulchre.
But I suspect this may have been done independent of the wider Voynich project and may expose the original purpose of the Voynich language.
What we may have is: a device for generating toponyms.
It would work in this way (crudely):
You take the word like JERUSALEM, say, and the name of its corresponding place in Italy, say, CATINACCIO, and the device (method) is able to create new (synthetic) words from the combinations and permutations of the letters in these words.
The first step is to convert both words into a common script, itself designed to facilitate combinations and permutations. The "device" is actually the script, the glyph-set.
The reason for doing this is to sanctify the new landscape with toponyms imbued with sacred potency.
These, then, are the LABELS in our manuscript. In the Labels we see the method being put to its original and proper purpose. This is what the script and method of word generation were invented for: to create place names that carry the sacred power of the Centre (Jerusalem) to the Periphery (Italy.)
In the Voynich manuscript, though, this method has been expanded and applied to other purposes besides creating toponyms. Now it is creating labels for various things, including the herbs of the new landscape.
If the two keywords, the verbum potentiae, are Theonyms, or similar, they are understood to contain inherent powers, which can then be extrapolated or unpacked, as it were.
(I point out that the name Jerusalem was believed to be sacred in itself, like a Name of God, as were other Biblical place names, by extension.)
In this scenario, the Voynich text would be a wholesale development of this idea, set to generating an entire language.
What began as a method for creating (sacred) toponyms (used by pilgrimage planners?) – from a coincidentia oppositorum of sacred and vernacular place names - has been put to wider purposes. The Voynich map reveals the first purpose: creating new place names.
It follows that the Labels will show us the original and simplest application of the system, before the method was adapted to creating more than just place names.
The ways in which Labelese is different to the rest of the text then becomes a matter of key importance.
For instance, there are none to very few bench-gallows glyphs in the labels. We might hypothesize that they were not part of the original scheme and were added when the method was expanded beyond its original application. ?
R.B.
I propose that the Voynich text has been generated from two keywords, verbum potentiae, namely CHOLDAIIN and QOKEEDY. In short, I propose that the creator of the text has set up these two terms as coinciding opposites, and the text arises out of their interaction.
In the manuscript, this is being presented as discourse between the terrestrial and celestial nymphs. But there is also another (earlier) framework: the movement of ideas from east to west.
The model for this is the transfer of sanctity from Jerusalem to local sites in Europe (Italy) made necessary by the closing of the pilgrimage routes at the end of the Middle Ages.
This, I argue, is what we see in the foldout Voynich map. It is a map concerning the imposition of the (symbolic, sacred) geography of the Holy Land upon a local, north Italian landscape. The focus of this transfer is the Holy Sepulchre.
But I suspect this may have been done independent of the wider Voynich project and may expose the original purpose of the Voynich language.
What we may have is: a device for generating toponyms.
It would work in this way (crudely):
You take the word like JERUSALEM, say, and the name of its corresponding place in Italy, say, CATINACCIO, and the device (method) is able to create new (synthetic) words from the combinations and permutations of the letters in these words.
The first step is to convert both words into a common script, itself designed to facilitate combinations and permutations. The "device" is actually the script, the glyph-set.
The reason for doing this is to sanctify the new landscape with toponyms imbued with sacred potency.
These, then, are the LABELS in our manuscript. In the Labels we see the method being put to its original and proper purpose. This is what the script and method of word generation were invented for: to create place names that carry the sacred power of the Centre (Jerusalem) to the Periphery (Italy.)
In the Voynich manuscript, though, this method has been expanded and applied to other purposes besides creating toponyms. Now it is creating labels for various things, including the herbs of the new landscape.
If the two keywords, the verbum potentiae, are Theonyms, or similar, they are understood to contain inherent powers, which can then be extrapolated or unpacked, as it were.
(I point out that the name Jerusalem was believed to be sacred in itself, like a Name of God, as were other Biblical place names, by extension.)
In this scenario, the Voynich text would be a wholesale development of this idea, set to generating an entire language.
What began as a method for creating (sacred) toponyms (used by pilgrimage planners?) – from a coincidentia oppositorum of sacred and vernacular place names - has been put to wider purposes. The Voynich map reveals the first purpose: creating new place names.
It follows that the Labels will show us the original and simplest application of the system, before the method was adapted to creating more than just place names.
The ways in which Labelese is different to the rest of the text then becomes a matter of key importance.
For instance, there are none to very few bench-gallows glyphs in the labels. We might hypothesize that they were not part of the original scheme and were added when the method was expanded beyond its original application. ?
R.B.
22-01-2024, 09:50 PM
I've made a post to my blog on this topic. See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The post goes:
Leaving aside dubious instances, we can compile a list of labels found in the text and consider such labels as a separate set. When we do so, it quickly becomes clear that these words have special features not typical of the running text. Labels are different.
Most obviously, there is the almost complete lack of the glyph [q] in these words while other glyphs, notably [o] and [y], are over-represented.
Most label words are unique, only occuring once in the manuscript. [q] is gone, and [o] and [y] are everywhere.
It appears that a different set of rules prevails in the creation of these words. They have not been pulled from the running text; they are a different class of words apparently formed in a slightly different way than the rest.
Hence the silly term “Labelese” as if it is a separate language. It’s not. It is a variation of the same language as the rest of the text, different again than Currier A and Currier B., and is important and possibly revealing for this reason.
Considering these words in terms of the dual paradigm system I have proposed as the basis for the entire Voynich language, the following observations can be made:
The labels are very largely based upon the keyword QOKEEDY, with far fewer based on the keyword CHOLDAIIN. And typically, the glyph-play and combinations we encounter concern the symmetry of the [o] and the [y] in QOKEEDY.
To explain:
The final glyph [y] is, in fact, a form of the glyph [o]. An [o] with a tail. If we remove the initial [q] and acknowledge the [y] as an [o] then QOKEEDY becomes [okeedo]. The [q] at the start, and the tail on the final letter, obscure this symmetry, but it is given full play in the labels. The [q] is dropped, and this exposes the interchangability of [o] and [y].
A high proportion of labels concern this [o] and [y] interplay inherent in QOKEEDY.
In labels we find a different way of creating words from the keyword QOKEEDY, namely without a [q].
Primarily, the [q] is omitted and the [o] comes forward. This in turn underlines the fact that the final [y] is a form of [o] as well, and so the symmetry of start and finish emerges. In this frame, QOKEEDY starts and ends with the glyph [o].
To make “Labelese”, the first step is to take the QOKEEDY paradigm, remove the [q] and draw attention to the [o] and [y] at start and finish.
Accordingly, a high proportion of Labels include (usually begin with) the bigram [ok-], or one of the other gallows, especially [t]. The gallows glyphs are over-represented. This includes a large group of words where the [y] replaces the [o] – words beginning [yk-].
Look at them all:
ykeydy, ytedy, yteedy, ykeear, ykeeol, ypcholdy, yteeody, ytokar, etc.
In every case, what has happened is that the [q] has been dropped from QOKEEDY and the initial [o] has become a [y]. Thus: [ykeedy].
Otherwise, there is an abundance of words beginning with [o] + [gallows]:
okolo, oksedy, okyl, okolody, okody, okeod, opchy, opochor, ofacal, otchdy, otan, otalody, etc.
In every case, the [q] has been dropped and the [o] becomes initial.
Again: when the [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY, the [o] is exposed and comes forward.
At the same time, the [k] tends to become [t]. The gallows glyph [t] is characteristic of the Label words. When the [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY, the gallows tends to change to [t]. The paradigm becomes: OTEEDY.
This is what is mainly involved in the creation of labels. We can especially see it in the prefix of label words.
There are labels based on the CHOLDAIIN paradigm, but few.
Notably, the form [chol] is lacking in labels. There are a few labels based on DAIIN, but even fewer based on CHOL. This is what has happened to the other keyword. The bifurcated CHOL has disappeared and is not used as a prefixing component.
Or rather, the [ch] from CHOL has been dropped and there is an abundance of words beginning [ol-]
Apparently, the [ch] of CHOLDAIIN it is deleted or recedes in sympathy with the deletion of the [q] from QOKEEDY.
When this happens, the [o] comes forward, or the [d] in DAIIN comes forward. We find a disproportionate number of labels beginning with [d] and based on DAIIN, but often with the [d] replacing the [ch] so the form [do-] is unusually common.
That is, we don’t find [chol] in the labels, but we do find [dchol]. And [dolol] and [doly] and [doldam].
Here the [d] has moved forward to replace [ch]. Otherwise, the initial [o-] prevails.
In any case, to make labels, the process is plain:
Remove [q] from QOKEEDY and [ch] from CHOLDAIIN.
In both cases, the initial glyph is removed in order to expose and bring forward the [o] and there is corresponding glyph-play on that basis.
In summary:
Most labels are based on the QOKEEDY paradigm.
The [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY exposing the initial [o] and drawing attention to the final [o], i.e. the [y]. The [y] comes forward.
The [ch] is dropped from CHOLDAIIN, exposing the initial [o] and bringing the [d] of DAIIN forward.
In short, labels are all about the glyph [o]. The models for labels are:
OKEEDY (or OTEEDY)
OLDAIIN
That is what is essentially different about “Labelese”. The initial glyphs have been removed from the paradigms. This has been done to put emphasis upon the [o] in each case.
Also note that the benched gallows forms are almost entirely absent from Labels. This is because the glyph [ch] has been dropped from CHOL. There are no benches to gallow.
It seems that other changes follow. Without the [ch] the [l] in CHOLDAIIN tends to mutate (becomes “unstable”) and readily changes to [r] or [s]. Thus we have many forms of [or-] and [os-], each of them a permutation of the [ol] in CHOLDAIIN.
We also see a high incidence of duplication in the Labels, again involving [o]. Thus we find configurations like: [okolo], [olol], [olkol], [oror].
Add to this the fact that Labels are heavily truncated – more severely truncated than words tend to be in the running text.
As has sometimes been noted by those who regard the Voynich text as founded upon a natural language, the proliferation of the [o] in Labels – this includes the enhanced role of [y] as a form of [o] – must surely suggest NOUNS.
In sundry European languages, the [o] sound is associated with nouns. Note how this convention is included in Esperanto.
One would expect Labels to be nouns. They might not be, but the fact so many begin with [o-] or [y-] is strongly suggestive in the context of the European Romance languages where [o] often signifies names.
Assuming the Voynich glyph [o] is the (Latinate) vowel [o].
Be that as it may, the distinct characteristics of “Labelese” are explicable in terms of the system I have been proposing.
We can quibble about what is and is not a label. We can compile slightly different lists by different criteria. But they all show the same thing.
Labels, like all words in the text, are permutations of QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, but the [q] in QOKEEDY and the [ch] in CHOLDAIIN are removed, and in doing this a new emphasis is placed on the glyph [o] in each case.
For whatever reason, this is the main characteristic of Labels.
R.B.
The post goes:
Leaving aside dubious instances, we can compile a list of labels found in the text and consider such labels as a separate set. When we do so, it quickly becomes clear that these words have special features not typical of the running text. Labels are different.
Most obviously, there is the almost complete lack of the glyph [q] in these words while other glyphs, notably [o] and [y], are over-represented.
Most label words are unique, only occuring once in the manuscript. [q] is gone, and [o] and [y] are everywhere.
It appears that a different set of rules prevails in the creation of these words. They have not been pulled from the running text; they are a different class of words apparently formed in a slightly different way than the rest.
Hence the silly term “Labelese” as if it is a separate language. It’s not. It is a variation of the same language as the rest of the text, different again than Currier A and Currier B., and is important and possibly revealing for this reason.
* * *
Considering these words in terms of the dual paradigm system I have proposed as the basis for the entire Voynich language, the following observations can be made:
The labels are very largely based upon the keyword QOKEEDY, with far fewer based on the keyword CHOLDAIIN. And typically, the glyph-play and combinations we encounter concern the symmetry of the [o] and the [y] in QOKEEDY.
To explain:
The final glyph [y] is, in fact, a form of the glyph [o]. An [o] with a tail. If we remove the initial [q] and acknowledge the [y] as an [o] then QOKEEDY becomes [okeedo]. The [q] at the start, and the tail on the final letter, obscure this symmetry, but it is given full play in the labels. The [q] is dropped, and this exposes the interchangability of [o] and [y].
A high proportion of labels concern this [o] and [y] interplay inherent in QOKEEDY.
In labels we find a different way of creating words from the keyword QOKEEDY, namely without a [q].
Primarily, the [q] is omitted and the [o] comes forward. This in turn underlines the fact that the final [y] is a form of [o] as well, and so the symmetry of start and finish emerges. In this frame, QOKEEDY starts and ends with the glyph [o].
To make “Labelese”, the first step is to take the QOKEEDY paradigm, remove the [q] and draw attention to the [o] and [y] at start and finish.
Accordingly, a high proportion of Labels include (usually begin with) the bigram [ok-], or one of the other gallows, especially [t]. The gallows glyphs are over-represented. This includes a large group of words where the [y] replaces the [o] – words beginning [yk-].
Look at them all:
ykeydy, ytedy, yteedy, ykeear, ykeeol, ypcholdy, yteeody, ytokar, etc.
In every case, what has happened is that the [q] has been dropped from QOKEEDY and the initial [o] has become a [y]. Thus: [ykeedy].
Otherwise, there is an abundance of words beginning with [o] + [gallows]:
okolo, oksedy, okyl, okolody, okody, okeod, opchy, opochor, ofacal, otchdy, otan, otalody, etc.
In every case, the [q] has been dropped and the [o] becomes initial.
Again: when the [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY, the [o] is exposed and comes forward.
At the same time, the [k] tends to become [t]. The gallows glyph [t] is characteristic of the Label words. When the [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY, the gallows tends to change to [t]. The paradigm becomes: OTEEDY.
This is what is mainly involved in the creation of labels. We can especially see it in the prefix of label words.
There are labels based on the CHOLDAIIN paradigm, but few.
Notably, the form [chol] is lacking in labels. There are a few labels based on DAIIN, but even fewer based on CHOL. This is what has happened to the other keyword. The bifurcated CHOL has disappeared and is not used as a prefixing component.
Or rather, the [ch] from CHOL has been dropped and there is an abundance of words beginning [ol-]
Apparently, the [ch] of CHOLDAIIN it is deleted or recedes in sympathy with the deletion of the [q] from QOKEEDY.
When this happens, the [o] comes forward, or the [d] in DAIIN comes forward. We find a disproportionate number of labels beginning with [d] and based on DAIIN, but often with the [d] replacing the [ch] so the form [do-] is unusually common.
That is, we don’t find [chol] in the labels, but we do find [dchol]. And [dolol] and [doly] and [doldam].
Here the [d] has moved forward to replace [ch]. Otherwise, the initial [o-] prevails.
In any case, to make labels, the process is plain:
Remove [q] from QOKEEDY and [ch] from CHOLDAIIN.
In both cases, the initial glyph is removed in order to expose and bring forward the [o] and there is corresponding glyph-play on that basis.
* * *
In summary:
Most labels are based on the QOKEEDY paradigm.
The [q] is dropped from QOKEEDY exposing the initial [o] and drawing attention to the final [o], i.e. the [y]. The [y] comes forward.
The [ch] is dropped from CHOLDAIIN, exposing the initial [o] and bringing the [d] of DAIIN forward.
In short, labels are all about the glyph [o]. The models for labels are:
OKEEDY (or OTEEDY)
OLDAIIN
That is what is essentially different about “Labelese”. The initial glyphs have been removed from the paradigms. This has been done to put emphasis upon the [o] in each case.
Also note that the benched gallows forms are almost entirely absent from Labels. This is because the glyph [ch] has been dropped from CHOL. There are no benches to gallow.
It seems that other changes follow. Without the [ch] the [l] in CHOLDAIIN tends to mutate (becomes “unstable”) and readily changes to [r] or [s]. Thus we have many forms of [or-] and [os-], each of them a permutation of the [ol] in CHOLDAIIN.
We also see a high incidence of duplication in the Labels, again involving [o]. Thus we find configurations like: [okolo], [olol], [olkol], [oror].
Add to this the fact that Labels are heavily truncated – more severely truncated than words tend to be in the running text.
* * *
As has sometimes been noted by those who regard the Voynich text as founded upon a natural language, the proliferation of the [o] in Labels – this includes the enhanced role of [y] as a form of [o] – must surely suggest NOUNS.
In sundry European languages, the [o] sound is associated with nouns. Note how this convention is included in Esperanto.
One would expect Labels to be nouns. They might not be, but the fact so many begin with [o-] or [y-] is strongly suggestive in the context of the European Romance languages where [o] often signifies names.
Assuming the Voynich glyph [o] is the (Latinate) vowel [o].
Be that as it may, the distinct characteristics of “Labelese” are explicable in terms of the system I have been proposing.
We can quibble about what is and is not a label. We can compile slightly different lists by different criteria. But they all show the same thing.
Labels, like all words in the text, are permutations of QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, but the [q] in QOKEEDY and the [ch] in CHOLDAIIN are removed, and in doing this a new emphasis is placed on the glyph [o] in each case.
For whatever reason, this is the main characteristic of Labels.
R.B.