(22-07-2026, 02:11 AM)bvanheu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't help but notice there are different kind of ways O's are drawn in VMS. I always starts my O from the top going counterclockwise.
In order to leave a bold trace when writing with a quill, you must apply some pressure so that the two legs of the point get spread apart, allowing the ink to flow to the tip. In some places, when the quill was about to run out of ink, you can see the two parallel traces left by the two legs.
But in that case you don't want to
push the pen, because it may snag on the fibers of the paper or the dimples and bumps of the vellum. If you are right-handed, you want to write the bold strokes in the general direction from N-NW-W to S-SE-E. Thus you should write the "
o" with two strokes: the SW half counterclockwise, and the NE half clockwise. Which is what we see in the VMS.
You can write in a "wrong" direction if you reduce the pressure. But that produces a thinner trace; and works only for short strokes, since the tip of the quill will soon run out of ink. On the VMS, the plumes of
r,
s,
n were generally drawn that way -- counterclockwise from bottom to top. The
n, in particular, was usually drawn with a single stroke; that is why it often has a round bottom, instead of a sharp corner.
All the best, --stolfi
(22-07-2026, 02:11 AM)bvanheu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi!
...
These could be EVA a though?
Hi!
Some look like o's to me but some do look like a's.
I wonder how much misinterpretation possibilities like these get in the way of being able to properly run diagnostics and models.
You almost have to include ands and ors within the file in order to see what happens in either case, then hopefully see some results that lean more one way than another in order to keep going.
This is very good observation, and I think it connects to a larger question of how the language was designed.
There are many other symbols which are ambiguous glyphs. Like "P", or "r" or "ch" (EVA) etc..
I believe these variations are not random, but deliberate. They encode additional information which leads to multilayer understanding.
Now, however there is another point in this direction- manuscript may had been copied by different scribes, some of whom were not initiated to understand the subtle rules, but copied mechanically what they see and understand.
This may explain why the text has not been deciphered- we are not just dealing with a code, but a code which had been corrupted by the copyists.
This could also explain why EVA transcription system which tries to map to each symbol fixed set of symbol(s) cannot be sufficient and as a result all the statistics is distorted.
Personally, I agree with Jorge: these appear to have all been written with two strokes ("In two quill traits")
(22-07-2026, 06:15 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now, however there is another point in this direction- manuscript may had been copied by different scribes, some of whom were not initiated to understand the subtle rules, but copied mechanically what they see and understand.
I assume that at least scribe A understood what he was writing.
Let's compare the writing of the letter
a by scribe A (Botany) and B (Balneology):
[
attachment=16716]
The parts of
a (
e and
i) are close together, and the spelling is quite stable.
Now let's take a look at the Scribe B:
[
attachment=16717]
I have underlined the special spellings in red. I can assume that scribe A may have parodied the Latin a to hide the encryption and deceive others. Scribe B was probably simply told how to write this letter, and he simply wrote it as best he could...
(22-07-2026, 04:34 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (22-07-2026, 02:11 AM)bvanheu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't help but notice there are different kind of ways O's are drawn in VMS. I always starts my O from the top going counterclockwise.
In order to leave a bold trace when writing with a quill, you must apply some pressure so that the two legs of the point get spread apart, allowing the ink to flow to the tip. In some places, when the quill was about to run out of ink, you can see the two parallel traces left by the two legs.
But in that case you don't want to push the pen, because it may snag on the fibers of the paper or the dimples and bumps of the vellum. If you are right-handed, you want to write the bold strokes in the general direction from N-NW-W to S-SE-E. Thus you should write the "o" with two strokes: the SW half counterclockwise, and the NE half clockwise. Which is what we see in the VMS.
You can write in a "wrong" direction if you reduce the pressure. But that produces a thinner trace; and works only for short strokes, since the tip of the quill will soon run out of ink. On the VMS, the plumes of r, s, n were generally drawn that way -- counterclockwise from bottom to top. The n, in particular, was usually drawn with a single stroke; that is why it often has a round bottom, instead of a sharp corner.
Thanks!
I am definitely not familiar with writing with a quills and suspected the material or the technique was responsible for these variations.
I appreciate the point about the handwriting variations.
But we need to distinguish between two different types of variation. The variations I am referring to are systematic, context dependent.
Consider f2r, which is clear written with careful penmanship.
Let us start with a simple, clear example. The first word on 5.th row of f2r, the three "o" like symbols are interest of the dicussion.
They are not identical- the first one is written in one way the second in another and the third -another. All three "read" as "o" s from EVA and all the statistics behind .
[
attachment=16730]
I believe these variations encode additional meaning- this is not handwriting variation it is too systematic.
I am not claiming to have solved this. I am pointing a pattern that deserves investigation. The variation of these "o" glyphs is not a flaw in the text, but a feature in the system.
Bess, please stop bringing your own theory and translations into other people's threads. You've been given warnings, both formal and informal, about this before.