19-09-2021, 08:06 PM
It was mentioned that a number of letters, although frequent, can not be seen on some pages. I want to know, what these letters are, and how many of them have been found.
19-09-2021, 08:06 PM
19-09-2021, 08:50 PM
20-09-2021, 04:18 PM
(19-09-2021, 08:50 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.q: f1r, f68v1, f72r3, f72v3, f72v1
JKP has a blog post about this. The lack of q on f1r, and the first and only occurrence on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. being the detached, line-initial word qô with a diacritic (exactly like the way quarto, quaternario, and other words starting with qu- and ending with -o were often abbreviated) is possibly a valuable clue to how and why the Voynichese writing system was designed. This could be a clue as to what changes the writer saw necessary to make, for the writing system to serve its intended purpose, and therefore in turn, what that intended purpose might have been.
Other than lengthy discussions about the shift from Currier A to Currier B, and the occasional discussion of EVA=x, I wonder if anyone has explored whether certain glyphs and ngrams' occurrences are late and slow before becoming common, or conversely, start off as common in the early folios, but then peter out well before the end of that hand and Currier language.
20-09-2021, 05:31 PM
(19-09-2021, 08:06 PM)Pardis Motiee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It was mentioned that a number of letters, although frequent, can not be seen on some pages. I want to know, what these letters are, and how many of them have been found.
Try voynichese.com and search for individual glyphs. That highlights which show up on which page and in what frequency, allowing for some transcription errors.
20-09-2021, 05:37 PM
(20-09-2021, 04:18 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.or conversely, start off as common in the early folios, but then peter out well before the end of that hand and Currier language.
Given the general opposite trend, this could suggest a wrongly ordered bifolio. Any example(s)?
21-09-2021, 07:59 PM
Because the bifolia are almost certainly misbound in their present sequence, analyzing glyphs and combinations based on where they currently appear in the manuscript isn't going to tell us anything useful. 1r was PROBABLY the original first leaf and 116v was PROBABLY the original final leaf, but other than that, it's really hard to determine the original sequence. It seems LIKELY that Currier A/Scribe 1 bifolia originally formed a group of several quires while Currier B/Scribe 2 herbal did as well. But even there, we don't know the original order of Currier A bifolia or Currier B herbal bifolia, or even which came first in the manuscript. So I don't think that looking at how glyph patterns evolve over the course of the manuscript in its current form is a useful analysis.