The Voynich Ninja

I don't see how that's different. All that may mean is that gallows, by virtue of being taller, are more likely to be misaligned.

The pattern Anton mentions is very pronounced.

There are many many incidents of the "o" being offset from the gallows (both in the horizontal and vertical directions) even when the gallows lines up with the other letters. This kind of mis-alignment is very suspicious and not the sort of thing that would be caused by the gallows being taller.

Yes, the problem is that it is not the gallows that is misaligned, it's o that is misaligned. Same thing with y. There are pics somewhere in the beginning of the thread.

Another baseline jump from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and if you look at the original folio, it also has the look of maybe being added later (different ink density):

[attachment=4844]

I'd like to add the second paragraph of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for the record, very suggestive in respect of multipass.

(02-10-2020, 04:34 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another baseline jump from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and if you look at the original folio, it also has the look of maybe being added later (different ink density):

Or.. A poor quill combined with unruled paper. Lots of text in the voynich. Scribes get sleepy. It's bound to happen, and probably a lot more than once.

(05-08-2020, 07:49 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are many many incidents of the "o" being offset from the gallows (both in the horizontal and vertical directions) even when the gallows lines up with the other letters

Hypothetically, if -as many have speculated- the o represents an article, it could be somewhat inconsistently joined to words. It might for example assimilate with some sounds and then be written together. In Arabic the definitive article behaves like that, although it's always written together with the word. 

Or, if it also represents a word by itself it could simply be that together it's an article, by itself it's... Something else.

However, if it chiefly happens with one or all of the gallows.. I'd have to wonder if there's some other underlying mechanism.

I'd still find a little sloppiness and coincidence more likely though.

Addendum: Suppose it's worth noting that y and o are very common in front of gallows in general. Might simply be that if your gallows be somewhat out of whack to the previous letter, that letter will likely be a o or y.

(05-05-2020, 09:41 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.f105r is a good example of multipass, especially the third paragraph which is a desperate mess!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

One other oddity about that third paragraph is that the last (or at least "lowest") line ends with a gallows.  I seem to recall that I couldn't find any other paragraph that ends that way, which suggests that paragraph-final gallows shouldn't typically be expected to occur and might even violate some structural rule.  (Of course, they're rare enough even at the ends of lines.)  That led me to wonder whether the "real" conclusion to the paragraph might have been added in above it -- implying in turn that there had been insufficient space left for it at the bottom, which would have been the case if the first line of the following paragraph had already been written.

(08-05-2020, 06:27 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding the coordinate system, when I looked for the structure of narration back in 2015, I introduced L-coordinates and P-coordinates (short for "line" and "paragraph", respectively), wherein the value of the coordinate is the ratio of the number of the line (or paragraph) in question to the total number of lines (or paragraphs) in a folio. One could do the same for characters in a line. I'm not sure offhand, if it makes sense to use relative (as I did) or rather absolute coordinates in the analysis that you propose. Maybe it makes sense to use both.

I've just now discovered this thread and have been finding it very interesting indeed.  I'm sorry I didn't see your writing about L-coordinates and P-coordinates earlier, since I'd have liked to acknowledge it as prior work in my posts about "rightwardness" and "downwardness."

There's a spot on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that might contribute more fodder for this "multipass" discussion:



I'm interested in the vord in the middle that seems to begin [choi].  There's a problem with it: namely, an overly long stroke descending from [l] in the vord [okol] in the line above it has intersected the [i] of [choi] in the exact place that would ordinarily have taken a flourish to turn the [i] into some acceptable vord-final glyph such as [r].  As a result, the usual way of completing [choi] has been blocked.  The solution seems to have been to write another separate glyph afterwards -- a very strange-looking glyph, and possibly a unique one, beginning something like an [s] or [r], but with a horizontal base, and ending with the flourish of [m] or [g] (it reminds me of the [r]-like glyph seemingly inserted above [a] on f24v).  Given the combination here of an unusual situation and an unusual glyph, I suspect the latter functioned as a substitute for a flourish added to the [i] of [choi] itself.

But if that's what's going on here, then what order would it make sense for the marks to have been written in?

If the scribe was looking at the page while writing, and if [okol] had already been written when (s)he wrote [choi], it seems unlikely that [choi] would have been allowed to overlap the descending stroke in such a problematic way.  So perhaps the line containing [choi] was written first, and the line above containing [okol] afterwards.  But if the whole line containing [choi] had been written first, there would have been no obstacle yet to completing [choi] in a more typical way, as [chor] or whatever.  So to make sense of what we're seeing, we might need to posit at least *three* steps: (1) writing the lower line up to [choi]; (2) writing the higher line up through and including [okol]; (3) finishing the lower line, starting with the completion of the unfinished vord [choi].

Alternatively, the scribe might have been unsure when writing [choi] how the vord should end, and then had to take special measures to complete it only after working this out and discovering that the stroke descending from [okol] was in the way.  After all, [choi] could probably still have been completed as [chol] without messiness or ambiguity.  It's [chor] that would have been a problem.

(10-12-2021, 03:34 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm interested in the vord in the middle that seems to begin [choi].

The glyph after [choi] is similar to a Latin -rum abbreviation.

(10-12-2021, 05:11 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The glyph after [choi] is similar to a Latin -rum abbreviation.

Yes, I agree that the glyph is unusual-looking only in the context of Voynichese.

For what it's worth, I see that "Extended EVA" actually assigns the number 165 to both the [i] and the following strokes as a single composite glyph.  This seems to be the only reported token of it.  The flourish on the following [m] in [dam] looks similarly detached.