The Voynich Ninja

"The other is: while "f" and "p" are never followed by "e", this is not the case for "te" and "ke" which are frequently followed by another "e". Does this lead to contradictions or to additional tentative conclusions?"


An idea could be that a benched/pedestal variation adds the missing e. So EVA "h" becomes "e" in these cases and "f/p" have implied "e". 

T and F seem to conform to this idea with "t" having a limit 1 higher than "f".
ctheee
cfhee

K and P seem to conform to this idea with "k" having a limit 1 higher than "p".
ckheee
cphee

(These are extreme examples but do occur)

This would still raise questions. Why is "kee" ok, but to do "kee" in "p" form you would need to write "cph"? also why "kee" and not "ckhe"?
______________________________________________

"The first is: should "f" be the prime form and "te" an elaborate (verbose) version, or is "te" the standard and "f" a ligature to be preferably (but not uniquely) used in top lines of paragraphs."


I'm not sure I have a good answer here. 
I have thought though that maybe it is unique to top lines of paragraphs, just paragraphs are not obvious. That's another hypothetical thought that I can't see being proven without a full solution. If that were the case, it would seem more likely to be an elaborate version which maybe indicates a new paragraph, or just a line they felt needed its own thing.
Furthermore, (like this). 
______________________________________________

I would need to do more work on "ch/sh" to get a better answer in regards to that idea. 
My thoughts currently are rather jumbled, probably unrealistic, and definitely not adequately supported. 

The hope is that my system will point in a direction. I can't see that happening in some cases, but "sh" seems a candidate. For example if a "sh" is non-conforming and looks like "ele" with the modifying top alteration being a tear-drop shape, then a pattern of this emerging might support the idea that the tear-drop "sh" has different rules to a "ese" looking "sh" and hopefully the rules match up with a solo glyph. This is probably another idea to be explored and dropped.. but it seems logical on the face of it.

(02-02-2025, 05:48 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Personally, I have no idea what "CLS rules" are and I'm not sure whether they were well formalized (quite possible they were, I just don't know) and whether there were several versions of them. All I know is that they describe some patterns in which glyphs follow other glyphs based on their shapes. There are dozens of very intriguing models showing various patterns of Voynichese, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people know all of them by heart 

The CLS (Curve-Line System) was something I developed with David Jackson in 2014, after we noticed that the shapes of glyphs had consequences for their placement. Summary below, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..



The CLS was just an observation about the word structure, not a full blown text generation system, but it was the first step we were using to build the full system (I still have the notes for the rest of it somewhere...).

I haven't been active on this board since I designed the logo, as I've been attending to other areas of my life. Really surprised to see it is still getting some traction. It made a big splash when it was first published - some positive, some negative, some just intrigued. Hard to know what the "consensus" was.

(22-09-2025, 07:54 AM)BrianCham1994 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The CLS (Curve-Line System) was something I developed with David Jackson in 2014, after we noticed that the shapes of glyphs had consequences for their placement. Summary below, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Hi Brian! I've seen your article before and I think the observations made there are very important. My point in the post you quoted was that when people say CLS they often refer to several different loosely defined systems that describe the preferences of glyphs to appear in certain sequences based on their shapes. There was your article, then there was some work by @pfeaster and now there is some investigation by @Bluetoes and I think I've seen other people try something similar too. So, there are no generic "CLS rules", and probably it makes sense to write explicitly what behavior one refers to or say something like "CLS patterns" when talking about this behavior in general.

(22-09-2025, 08:42 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Brian! I've seen your article before and I think the observations made there are very important. My point in the post you quoted was that when people say CLS they often refer to several different loosely defined systems that describe the preferences of glyphs to appear in certain sequences based on their shapes. There was your article, then there was some work by @pfeaster and now there is some investigation by @Bluetoes and I think I've seen other people try something similar too. So, there are no generic "CLS rules", and probably it makes sense to write explicitly what behavior one refers to or say something like "CLS patterns" when talking about this behavior in general.

Thanks for clarifying, as I didn't know about the additional "systems" kicked off by the original article's publication. It would be lovely to catch up with the latest work and continue the original investigation (we found some interesting things using genetic algorithms!), but alas, this field just demands so much investment. As a former co-worker once told me, "you can do anything, but you can't do everything!"