One thing to keep in mind is that we don't know to what extent Voynechese or its predecessor were standardized. Take again Latin -que for example. In school we learn that it is added to the noun, but in speech there is nothing to indicate such spelling.
I notice that in two of the cases you show here, the o would have collided with another o. That may have been enough of a reason to sometimes write it separately.
Or for all we know, 4o can be a standalone unite as well. Like 'on' or 'in' in English, for example.
Emma,
Given the remarks made in a letter to Kircher by Georg Baresch - do you think it possible that each glyph might represent a logogram - either by substituting a simpler form for the more complex one, or by recording (approximately) the sound of each? I expect the latter would be more likely, and that would make each glyph a syllable, I suppose.
(11-09-2016, 05:56 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Given the remarks made in a letter to Kircher by Georg Baresch - do you think it possible that each glyph might represent a logogram - either by substituting a simpler form for the more complex one, or by recording (approximately) the sound of each? I expect the latter would be more likely, and that would make each glyph a syllable, I suppose.
Emma can answer for herself but my opinion is that it's entirely possible that text like this could abjadic (designed so it doesn't require vowels, like many old languages, including Hebrew) or abugidadic (designed as syllables, as in many ancient languages and Asian languages). In the latter, each glyph is a syllable, which results in many short words (reminiscent of the VMS). It's one of the possibilities that particularly interests me.
(11-09-2016, 05:56 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Emma,
Given the remarks made in a letter to Kircher by Georg Baresch - do you think it possible that each glyph might represent a logogram - either by substituting a simpler form for the more complex one, or by recording (approximately) the sound of each? I expect the latter would be more likely, and that would make each glyph a syllable, I suppose.
I can't speak to the origins of the script. But the size of the sign inventory is around 18 to 22 characters. This suggests that if the script encodes sounds it does so alphabetically. I count abjads as alphabets here, though I would argue that vowels are at least partially indicated.
Saying that, I'm open to the idea that the system is more complex than a simple alphabet. It could be that single sounds are represented by combinations of characters. This is most likely in [e] and [i] sequences (I wouldn't be surprised if a word like [aiin] is actually a long vowel, for example), but could also be true for strings like [kch] and [tch].
Also, I'm not sure that either Baresch or Kircher knew anything of value about the Voynich manuscript besides its history.
One note on abjadic or partially abjadic systems is that not only homonyms can produce extra tokens of the same words. There is the additional problem that the "skeleton" of consonants, whether it is completely empty or filled in only with certain vowels, is supposed to be completed with different vowels. So the witten word or glyph is the same, but the vowel pronunciation is different. This is still a problem today in the interpretation of some Egyptian writings, for example. We just don't know which vowel sound to put in there, so we also don't know which word it is.
At the same time I agree that at least some Voynichese glyphs are almost certainly vowels, or at least can be used as such. But plenty of abjadic systems use or have used at least some form of partial vowel indication.
I'm not sure Kirschner learned much about the manuscript either. He was near the end of his life when it reached him and the Internet was still sand.
(11-09-2016, 05:10 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I notice that in two of the cases you show here, the o would have collided with another o. That may have been enough of a reason to sometimes write it separately.
That could be the case - maybe he wanted to separate the o's. On the other hand there are examples of <
qoos> and <
qooko>, so who knows.
Quote:Or for all we know, 4o can be a standalone unite as well. Like 'on' or 'in' in English, for example.
Those are very correct words: "for all we know"
(12-09-2016, 03:20 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (11-09-2016, 05:10 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I notice that in two of the cases you show here, the o would have collided with another o. That may have been enough of a reason to sometimes write it separately.
That could be the case - maybe he wanted to separate the o's. On the other hand there are examples of <qoos> and <qooko>, so who knows.
Quote:Or for all we know, 4o can be a standalone unite as well. Like 'on' or 'in' in English, for example.
Those are very correct words: "for all we know"
There are a number of ways to look at this. Some examples that come immediately to mind are:
1. 4o could be an extension of 4, with 4 being "q" and 4o being "qu". Most languages have combinations that are more common than others.
or...
2. One can think of 4o as being something like "pro" (a common Latin abbreviation) and, if it were, then perhaps 4 by itself might be "pre" (another common Latin abbreviation). Thus, they could be conceptually related in terms of first letter and historic precedent.
or...
3. 4 and 4o could be two unrelated assignments. For example, the Luetz code that I summarized on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., uses the 4 to represent "a" and 4o to represent "p", with a single glyph having the same alphabetic "value" as a double glyph and the similarity in shape being superficial (or intentionally misleading). Thus, in the VMS, the 4o might be "qu" and a 4 might be something less frequently used, like a number perhaps.
or...
4. The 4 could be a character or sound, syllable or concept, and the o could be a modifier. In English, we use -s for plurals, un- to negate, -ly to change the grammatical sense from noun to adverb. These are different kinds of modifiers. Consider the high frequency of the letter "o" in the VMS and how many of them seem to always be in the same position in the word, just as we put -s at the end of words to create plurals. Or it could be that the 4 itself is a modifier, one that's not frequently needed. As long as its meaning is known, it wouldn't matter where in the word it was positioned so the designer chose the beginning.
I can think of quite a few other possibilities, but that's enough to get the idea.
A constructed language doesn't have to follow natural language tendencies for grammar. As an example, mathematics is a form of constructed language that is well understood by mathematicians, so well that they can write jokes to each other in "math' that can't even be translated into regular English (programmers have these kinds of jokes too, humor that simply isn't explainable to a nonprogrammer) but it doesn't follow natural language rules of grammar and many aspects of it can't easily be expressed in words (which is why students of math have to learn the symbology in addition to listening to lectures on the concepts). In fact, different branches of math and physics have different "grammars" and a mathematician specializing in one can't necessarily read the others.
A constructed language to explain plants and cosmology (assuming the text is meaningful and in some way related to the images) probably wouldn't lean toward the math side, it would probably lean more toward the linguistic side, but it's still possible to describe things in ways that are quite different from natural language grammars (which, in themselves, can be quite variable).
JKP / You forgot to mention the language of chemical formulas.
In addition there is an international "language" of radio telegraphist, in which a combination of symbols which denotes a concept. There is also "informal slang" for the transmission of not normative lexicon.
(12-09-2016, 01:50 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
JKP / You forgot to mention the language of chemical formulas.
In addition there is an international "language" of radio telegraphist, in which a combination of symbols which denotes a concept. There is also "informal slang" for the transmission of not normative lexicon.
You're right, Wladimir, I did neglect to mention the language of chemical formulas. Good example.
Also the example of "informal slang", like calling "10-4" for a radio transmission. That should be included too.