The Voynich Ninja

I have a mostly written blog on this, but I am falling farther and farther behind in my blogs (I don't know when I can finish it) and, despite the pandemic, work is busier than ever, so it's becoming difficult to fit in any Voynich research.

This topic came up on another thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.

I've written numerous blogs about shapes in the VMS that are similar to Latin scribal conventions.

I want to point out another analogy, and that is that EVERY GLYPH that could (by convention) have a terminal tail in Latin has a tail in the VMS. Look at this example that I snapped from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the big-plant section. There are no exceptions. Every terminal glyph that has a tail-appropriate shape has a tail:





This is pretty important because they do NOT put tails on everything in medieval scripts, but they do have a method for deciding which shapes CAN be given a terminal shape.

For example, in languages that use Latin characters (French, German, Italian, English, Czech, Spanish, etc.)

• It is NOT customary to add a tail to the letter "o" because it would be confused with g or y.
  
• It is NOT customary to add a tail to letters that already have a descender or ascender (thus "g" does not normally have an extra terminal tail, nor does "d").
  
• It is NOT customary to add a tail to an x-shape (EVA-d is similar to a looped x), and it almost has a descender the way it is usually written in the VMS.
  

If there is a "tail" on the above letters in Latin-alphabet languages, then it is usually an abbreviation, not a terminal tail. A terminal tail is a shape convention, not an abbreviation convention. For example, if you write Roman numeral 4 (iiii) in the old style with 4 minims (rather than iv) then it was usually written iiij. It's not a "j" as we know it, it's a minim with a terminal tail.

If you look at the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. you will see that some of the letters have terminal tails, like the "n" and "h" on the last line. This is pretty normal in medieval script. Some scribes also added a tail to "h" within a word (and sometimes not).

It might even be argued that y is a c-shape with a tail rather than a Latin-like abbreviation symbol, but that's a separate discussion.


So, the VMS text respects this basic convention of which shapes may have a tail and which ones usually don't BUT it is highly unusual and distinct in having a tail on every terminal letter that is, by convention, allowed to have a tail. This is NOT something you see in medieval manuscripts.

It is, however, a very western way of doing things, even if it is idiosyncratic and specific to the order and choice of VMS glyphs.


So... putting a tail on everything that might normally have a tail seems to me to be significant because the entire manuscript is crafted like this. It's not like normal narrative text. It's almost like an exercise in scribal conventions and discipline (skills that a would-be scribe would need to have to get into a guild or to secure an apprenticeship).

I've often thought that the VMS was unfinished. There are a few things that look like they were left out. One of these is the illuminated initial that would normally be in the upper-left corner of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (it is missing). But maybe it's not "unfinished". Maybe this is part of the exercise. Indent the text to make room for an initial. Demonstrate that you know how to do it.

This is an important topic, and certainly one that pops up a lot when thinking about glyph equivalences.

First though, why do you not consider EVA-y tailed?

I think there are two arguments for it. That it is a c-shape with a tail. Or that it is a y shape (which, in Latin languages is usually at the end or beginning of words as an abbreviation symbol).

It's such a complex discussion, I don't think it can be discussed on the same thread. I'm agnostic about which one it might be. There are arguments for both sides.

(13-12-2020, 04:49 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've written numerous blogs about shapes in the VMS that are similar to Latin scribal conventions.

First of all JKP, I wanted to credit you and your blog with opening my eyes to the fact that all Voynichese glyphs, with the possible exception of EVA=t, would have been familiar to anyone reading or writing in the Roman alphabet in XV century Europe. I'm fully sold; the VMs's writing system is anything but exotic. As is the way in this scene, I'd bet money you're not the first to come up with this idea. But I'll be damned if I could name anyone from the original Mailing List or the First Study Group who pointed it out before you. Since you've been the most passionate, articulate, and well-sourced defender of this idea during my time working with the VMs, you'll be the one I'll credit if I ever publish anything about the VMs that builds upon this idea.

If true, your Voynichese-glyphs-as-repurposed-Latin-scribal-marks idea undermines theories that the VMs is a fake foreign book, designed to swindle someone rich, or impress party guests. If this were indeed the writer's intention, using almost all glyph shapes that were familiar to literate people doesn't really help that end.

If the VMs is really a meaningless medieval hoax, I think it's more likely that the intended marks were the illiterate clientele of a quack doctor or other fake expert, and the book was designed to be carried and "pored over" by the charlatan. I digress.

JKP Wrote:I want to point out another analogy, and that is that EVERY GLYPH that could (by convention) have a terminal tail in Latin has a tail in the VMS. Look at this example that I snapped from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the big-plant section. There are no exceptions. Every terminal glyph that has a tail-appropriate shape has a tail.

That said, this quote of yours feels like a truism to me. Which tells me I'm probably having trouble wrapping my head around it. Here's what I think you mean; correct me if I'm wrong: The final glyph of a vord has a tail if and only if its tailless Latin-scribal-convention homolog also conventionally took a tail when it ended a word.

Yes, there were two things I wanted to emphasize.

1. The final VMS glyph has a tail, in the conventional style of Latin-alphabet glyphs that normally have tails.
   
2. All of the VMS terminal glyphs (that qualify in terms of shape) have these tails throughout the manuscript.
   

There are some reasons why #2 is unusual...

• There is very little variation in the VMS final characters.
  
• In the example where I mentioned the minims in Roman numeral iiii being written iiij, the VMS gives the terminal minim a tail (as is common for that glyph), BUT it is always in the upward direction, rather than some being upward and some being downward. Now, if the minims are intended to be "n" or "u" (as examples), then it would be common for it to be in the upward direction (I'm only referring to shape in Latin manuscript, not to linguistic meaning in the VMS). So, in the VMS, the minims tail is always up, in natural western languages, both up and down are common.
  

Below is an example of c. 1451 Gothic script (Latin language) in a style very similar to the script on 116v. It has many shapes in common with the VMS such as

• the 9 abbrev. at the beginnings and ends of words,
  
• -ris (m) and -tis suffixes on words (but other glyphs, like m in the Latin alphabet, that would have a descending tail are not represented), and
  
• on the last line, habitiiin with the tail arcing in the upward direction (very common abbrev. for words ending in "um" "am" "un" or "an").
  

But there is far more variation of terminal glyphs (and glyphs in general) and the order of glyphs in the Latin script than there is in the VMS.

If you say, for the sake of discussion that y is e + tail or e + tail, then every VMS token in this clip has a terminal tail (except the round shapes o or d, which would normally not have one in any western language):



Thus, the y n r s and m comprise the overwhelming majority of terminal glyphs (g shows up occasionally but not frequently). Only five characters. In linguistic texts, most letters (c. 18 to 22 characters) can occur at the end. The tail analogy applies to specific shapes, but not their frequency.


Compare this to the Latin example (which is similar in balance and form to other languages that use Latin characters). Even though terminal tails are relatively common, it averages only about 1 or 2 per line (some manuscripts might have 3 or 4 but it's rare for there to be more than this).




Western languages generally only have about 10–20% of words ending in tails (this is if you combine terminal tails together with abbrev. symbols that are tails—if you count only terminal tails, the percentage is even less).


Stretched letters and tails do occur in Hebrew and Arabic scripts, but the choice of what gets a tail appears to follow Latin-alphabet conventions in the VMS.

For those who are interested, here is a translation of the Latin text (prayer-related). I have expanded the abbreviations. It might not be perfect (I don't know what "tuaut" is meant to be) but it's pretty close:


In nomina beatissime ac individue trinitatis Amen
Redemptor humani generis / qui visitavit nos oriens
ex alto quibusvis conmunem vivendi modum per percepta
dotuerit ditens / Si vis advitam ingredi serva mandata
Modum tun? maioris perfectonnis non tuaut? tum dixit / Qui vult
venire post me abneget semet ipsum et tollat crucem suam et
sequatur me / Quem modum vivendi tumdem sancti prens distinctione
habituum et doctrinis regularum spiritu sancto inspiritante

It is ' tuant' from  verb tueri and prens should be patres, it is an Arenga of a charter by papal visitators for monastery Admont

So on the fact that there are so many tails at the ends of words. Am I right in supposing that this looks like positional variation and abbreviation simultaneously? So "x with tail" is to be read ad "x + missing part"? Again EVA-y complicates things here probably, since it just stands for the abbreviated part.