(22-06-2026, 04:50 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do have observations that led me to believe in the frequent mis-reading of in as r, and of d as k or vice-versa. But I suppose you would dismiss them as mere coincidences...
There is no valid way to make a difference between conincidence and correlation within observations about VMS details; so yes, it is a portion of
believe to step up to correlations — I would not follow there.
(22-06-2026, 04:50 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The rate of errors can be very high. The diary of the Lewis and Clark expedition is full of mis-spellings;
[..]
And yet the authors were US Army officers who went through a military academy, and of course knew the language...
That is a nice anecdote, but not very much surprising: most major languages, even western ones, did not get a universal standardization of grammar, spelling etc. until the end of 19th century.
Of course, all earlier scripts could have been or were indeed written quite wildly in all regards, even by one and the same scribe.
Your example is set to insinuate that some foreigner may have made a lot of spelling errors with (for him) strange vocabulary. It may be or be not so — but there is no sure hint that VMS was made by „foreigners“ or native speakers just writing in a (for us) foreign alphabet.
At all, this here is still dedicated to gain a roster of observable, smallest autonomous or atomistic pieces of this character set — you added some interpretions to your point of view onto that alphabet, but this cannot be quite comptible with my initial idea.
Looks like I have to upload my own transcription some day.
(03-07-2026, 10:39 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is a nice anecdote, but not very much surprising: most major languages, even western ones, did not get a universal standardization of grammar, spelling etc. until the end of 19th century.
Whether we call those variations "errors" or "normal", the point is that the possible presence of errors may lead us to identify "atoms" or "elements" that are bogus, just products of that noise. Like my hypothetical misreading of -
in for -
r by the scribe leading us to postulate bogus "coda" elements -
ir and -
iir. Or a malformed
C in
Ch making us list
Ih as a separate "bench" element.
Quote:there is no sure hint that VMS was made by „foreigners“ or native speakers just writing in a (for us) foreign alphabet.
The misaligned lines in the "two-column" text of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. suggests that the Scribe who put the text to vellum did not understand it. Whereas there is no evidence for the claim that he
did understand it. This is a common assumption that follows from the common assumption that the Scribe was the same as the Author, or at least part of the same community that created the text and the script. But there is no evidence for this latter claim, either.
Is the latter claim more likely "a priori"? I don't think so. I would give that claim at most 50% chance, for reasons that I advanced before
Quote:At all, this here is still dedicated to gain a roster of observable, smallest autonomous or atomistic pieces of this character set
Sorry if my intervention was off-topic. But if the goal is to get to the smallest elements of the script (whether they have phonetic value or not), isn't that just the set of basic pen strokes --
e,
i, the
five six types of plumes/tails (
r n j m ?
l , or
s b d g o y ), the left leg of the gallows and the four types of right leg (
k t p f ), the ligature of
Ch and
CPh, and the "special symbols" (
q x v )?
All the best, --stolfi
(04-07-2026, 05:40 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..] But if the goal is to get to the smallest elements of the script (whether they have phonetic value or not), isn't that just the set of basic pen strokes -- e, i, the five six types of plumes/tails ( r n j m ? l , or s b d g o y ), the left leg of the gallows and the four types of right leg ( k t p f ), the ligature of Ch and CPh, and the "special symbols" ( q x v )?
That would lead to the "protons, electrons etc." of the text, if not even to the quarks and neutrinos -- I do not intend to count them.
Is there anywhere a single tail present in the text, or a lonely leg? No?
Then there is no reason to roster it.
(16-07-2026, 01:33 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there anywhere a single tail present in the text, or a lonely leg? No?
Well, there is at least one
o with a plume, and several
Sh whose plume is in a "non-standard" place -- either on the first
e or on the second
e, rather than on the ligature.
And there are ultra-fancy gallows where the two legs are spread apart and planted on separate words.
But I agree that those weirdities are accidental or whimsical (or created by the BEEEP) and not relevant for the purpose of determining the "true" alphabet,
Quote:I do not intend to count them.
I can't object to that. But then, what is the difference between your set of atoms and mine:
- the "circles" { a o y }
- the "dealers" { d l r s }
- the "benches" { Ch Sh ee Che She eee }
- the "simple gallows" { k t ke te }
- the "platform gallows" or "bench-gallows" { CKh CTh CKhe CThe }
- the "codas" { n in iin }
In addition, I think the "quot" {
q } is a special symbol like our "&", the "mum" {
m } is an abbreviation for
iin and maybe other endings, and the "puffs" {
p f } are fancy versions of gallows and maybe other glyphs or diglyphs. Everything else I think is either a rarely used symbol (like
x,
v ) or a malformed version of the above (like
Ih,
CTHh,
Cs,
b,
g,
j,
u, etc.).
All the best, --stolfi