25-09-2026, 05:54 AM
In reverse, it is the glyph that enters the word, the key: from a selection of y, n, r, l:
Here, the y was chosen.
Then the “d” as a branch, one of two possibilities (d or not d),
Then the “E-run,” here in the form of a single “e,”
Then the “base glyph” of this series—ch, sh, k, t, and others—here k
Working backward, this is a clear, very uniform structure, followed—in some glyphs—by additional glyphs (in some longer words) that adhere to this same structure.
And this structure is the same across all families, just with different keys, branches, and runs.
It’s so clear, simple, and uniformly structured that it still completely baffles me—and, in fact, this rigid and highly uniform structure seems incompatible with any language. At least, I can’t imagine it; this language would have to be highly structured. Here’s the diagram again:
Of course, I don't know if that means you really have to decipher the VMS by looking at it from the back, but from that perspective, the structure becomes so uniform—that's what I find interesting.
Here, the y was chosen.
Then the “d” as a branch, one of two possibilities (d or not d),
Then the “E-run,” here in the form of a single “e,”
Then the “base glyph” of this series—ch, sh, k, t, and others—here k
Working backward, this is a clear, very uniform structure, followed—in some glyphs—by additional glyphs (in some longer words) that adhere to this same structure.
And this structure is the same across all families, just with different keys, branches, and runs.
It’s so clear, simple, and uniformly structured that it still completely baffles me—and, in fact, this rigid and highly uniform structure seems incompatible with any language. At least, I can’t imagine it; this language would have to be highly structured. Here’s the diagram again:
Of course, I don't know if that means you really have to decipher the VMS by looking at it from the back, but from that perspective, the structure becomes so uniform—that's what I find interesting.