The Voynich Ninja

(24-09-2016, 07:57 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-09-2016, 06:21 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen Gh.Emma

I've read a couple of your posts but only after I had made up my mind about what could ne known about the language. I was especially fond of the one comparing a and 9, because I personally believe they are the same sound written differently depending on posotion. In fact Diane recommended your blog when I was talking about these things.

I studied linguistics at university but never learned much about comparative linguistics, which is unfortunately the most relevant discipline at this stage of voynich studies. So I'm glad you're back on the forum

In the VMS, the "a" glyphs are positioned somewhat where you would expect them to be if the "a" and "o" are vowels and the letters around them that look more like consonants are actually consonants.

The EVA-y (the number 9), does not behave this way, however. It behaves exactly as you would expect it to behave if it were the Latin 9-abbreviation glyph. In Latin (and other languages that use Latin abbreviations)—it is found frequently at the ends of words, sometimes at the beginning of words, and occasionally (not often) in the middle of words. In other words, it doesn't behave like a typical vowel and is found at the ends of words much too frequently for most natural languages.


The VMS "alphabet" (if characters are interpreted as approximately one glyph to one letter) is rather lean. Many pages use only about 15 or 16 glyphs. Some glyphs are almost never used. It's difficult to find languages with such a restrained alphabet. Most have at least 20 characters, many have 30 or more characters. Even old italic had 17 characters. If both the "a" and the "9" represent the same letter, it reduces the number of characters even further.

The alphabets that tend to have very constrained alphabets tend to be abjads but if this were an abjad, then one has to consider the possibility that "a" and "o" (and the other glyphs) do not represent vowels. Or that only a few vowels are represented.

The other problem is that the letters don't move around enough. If the spaces are accepted as real, this is a big problem. In most natural languages, the position of letters is much more flexible than it is in the VMS. If the spaces are not real, it partly solves this problem, but then one has to consider the possibility of null characters or, once again, the positional behavior of the glyphs is not typical for natural languages.


Koen wrote: "About vowels, I agree with the ones yoy name. However, I don't think Voynichese is a one-to-one alphabet. For example I think the glyph that looks like c can be a vowel but also an unrelated consonant."


If the "a" and "o" are vowels, then the glyph that resembles a "c" also behaves mostly like a vowel (in terms of position) and it's hard to cast it as a consonant, as well, based on position and frequency. I'm not saying glyphs can't do "double duty" and stand for more than one thing, but I don't think it's the "c" glyph that is the most likely contender, I think it's the "o". The "o" not only is unusually frequent, but positionally it sometimes behaves like a vowel and sometimes like something else (possibly a marker or grammatical modifier).

-JKP-, what does y usually stand for in Latin when it appears in the middle of the word?

(24-09-2016, 07:57 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The "o" not only is unusually frequent, but positionally it sometimes behaves like a vowel and sometimes like something else (possibly a marker or grammatical modifier).

The initial "o" is surely something special. I think it's more like something article-like that's attached to the word, and generally ignore it when attempting to interpret a word.

For the "c", I mean a case like this label for example (the one next to the hand):



I strongly suspect that this label is a variety of the word "kurat", which has existed to denote a type of leek from pre-Islamic times to modern day use. In that case, it is possible that the "cc" is actually a vowel-R ligature. Voynichese seems to toggle between cursive and non-cursive at times within the same word, so I believe this is possible.

This is also why I have lost all belief in a one-to-one alphabet solution...

(24-09-2016, 06:00 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These questions aside, how we work out syllable structure will depend on what characters we assign to be vowels (or capable of forming a syllable nucleus). Once we make the first argument for those sound values both the structure of the syllable, and possible sounds for other characters, soon follow. I would argue that o, a, and y are vowel sounds, but am interested in hearing counter proposal (and arguments).

I tend to think:

• a, e, and o are vowels
  
• i is a modifier of the previous vowel, as is e (when there's more than one)
  
• y is a syllabic consonant (capable of serving both as ordinary consonant and syllable nucleus), as are possibly some other letters (l, ch, Sh)
  

---

(24-09-2016, 07:57 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the VMS, the "a" glyphs are positioned somewhat where you would expect them to be if the "a" and "o" are vowels and the letters around them that look more like consonants are actually consonants.

The EVA-y (the number 9), does not behave this way, however. It behaves exactly as you would expect it to behave if it were the Latin 9-abbreviation glyph. In Latin (and other languages that use Latin abbreviations)—it is found frequently at the ends of words, sometimes at the beginning of words, and occasionally (not often) in the middle of words. In other words, it doesn't behave like a typical vowel and is found at the ends of words much too frequently for most natural languages.

What I suspect is that a Latin scribe was creating a script for a language that had a sound that only (or mostly) occurs at the beginnings and ends of words, so the symbol y seemed to him an appropriate choice to represent it.

Dear Ms. Smith,
 
Since I believe the VMS words are not text words, except in very rare instances, but rather compilations of one or more codes, I do not think there need to be vowels or consonants in the words as in most languages. As you may already know, I tend to agree with many 'experts' from Captain Currier down to the present that the VMS text does not resemble any known language in its makeup or use.
 
In my glyph/sound alphabet at my fumblydiddles.com site, I show tentative ID's for about forty glyphs. I think there about that many more that are one-time appearance glyphs or very. very rare glyphs used less than 5 or 6 times.
 
I think the longest string of c glyphs in any code is two (cc) - in Group I and in Group III. Longer strings show the presence of more than one code group. In some cases, two consecutive c glyphs may be indicative of the presence of two code groups or parts of code groups. They are sounded as 'l' and 'll', which I think are linguistically separate sounds, or were so considered by the author of the VMS.
 
I think in glyph has the sound of 'æ'. If found at the end of a VMS word, it is a visual mnemonic for the 'm' sound, as in 'minim', and is sounded 'm'. (Likewise, a '9' glyph is normally sounded as 'h' but at the end of a VMS word, it's sounded as 'g' and is a visual mnemonic for 'g', as in grain.)
 
The word eh1cc9 would be sounded t-e-s-l-l-h, or, actually, t-e-s-l-l-g. I don't think this is a VMS word nor could it normally be a word in the scheme I propose (unless t-e-s or t-e-s-l-l turn out to be new Group I code attributions).
 
I think o, a and 9 glyphs are sounded as 'r', 'm' and ''h', except when the 9 glyph is found at the right end of a Voynich word and is a mnemonic (as shown above).
 
I have shown in my deconstructions of the almost 2,400 words repeated two or more times in the VMS that all but twelve follow a strict scheme and sequence using a large number of Group I codes which are modified by only a total of 55 other codes in 5 other sequentially applied groups/tables. This is not something that can be done with any language that I have heard of. Possibly I am wrong. If so, I hope you can show me the error of my ideas, methods, work or results. I know it sounds improbable, but anyone checking my work will see the words really can be deconstructed as I say.
 
I think I have shown that the words are not formed in any normal way, nor in the way they would be in any artificial language I have heard about.
 
Others may ignore the results of my deconstruction scheme, be ignorant of the results or just flat refuse to consider them as important and/or pertinent. But they ARE real. I think those results need to be considered by anyone seriously trying to figure out a solution to the VMS secrets.
 
Those results sure do make it hard for anyone trying to construct an alternate scheme that also gives such consistent results, don't you think?
 
This is about the deconstruction scheme, sequence, methods and groups of codes and the proposed glyph/sound alphabet. The deconstruction ideas and results are fact. The alphabet is only a proposed group of sounds and meanings.
 
Thank you.
 
Don of Tallahassee
 

(24-09-2016, 09:19 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-09-2016, 06:00 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These questions aside, how we work out syllable structure will depend on what characters we assign to be vowels (or capable of forming a syllable nucleus). Once we make the first argument for those sound values both the structure of the syllable, and possible sounds for other characters, soon follow. I would argue that o, a, and y are vowel sounds, but am interested in hearing counter proposal (and arguments).

I tend to think:

• a, e, and o are vowels
  
• i is a modifier of the previous vowel, as is e (when there's more than one)
  
• y is a syllabic consonant (capable of serving both as ordinary consonant and syllable nucleus), as are possibly some other letters (l, ch, Sh)
  

I certainly think your first two points are likely. I've come to the same conclusion about i, though a slightly different one about e.

This is the first time I've heard the third proposal regarding y. I am quite happy that ch and sh can be in both consonant and vowel positions. But y strikes me as not having the same qualities. Can it explain why y appears less commonly in the middle of words, and never before certain characters? I do believe that any theory concerning y has to account for its relationship with a.

To a broader point concerning the phonology of Voynichese: if we believe ch and sh are sometimes acting as syllabic consonants we can potentially narrow down their value. Syllabic consonants are typically sonorants, so sounds like /n, m, r, l/. (I know which of those I would put my money on.) Though, as ever, problems arise when we consider the ends of words where ch and sh don't appear: can sonorants be forbidden in the syllable coda?

(24-09-2016, 10:43 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is the first time I've heard the third proposal regarding y. I am quite happy that ch and sh can be in both consonant and vowel positions. But y strikes me as not having the same qualities. Can it explain why y appears less commonly in the middle of words, and never before certain characters? I do believe that any theory concerning y has to account for its relationship with a.

I agree that y seems to be functioning primarily as a vowel or syllable nucleus.  But it's not clear what role it's playing when it follows a sequence of e's. E.g. ey, eey, etc.  Admittedly a vowel sound might not be inappropriate here either.  But I also think that y also seems to be a kind of counterpart to l, which seems to be primarily a consonant.

Quote:To a broader point concerning the phonology of Voynichese: if we believe ch and sh are sometimes acting as syllabic consonants we can potentially narrow down their value. Syllabic consonants are typically sonorants, so sounds like /n, m, r, l/. (I know which of those I would put my money on.)

If you're thinking that ch and Sh might represent /n/ and /m/ (not sure which would be which), then this is also a possibility that I have considered.

Quote:Though, as ever, problems arise when we consider the ends of words where ch and sh don't appear: can sonorants be forbidden in the syllable coda?

That's a good question.  I don't know.  I do know that in both Japanese and Mandarin Chinese /m/ may begin but not end a syllable, but /n/ may do both.

(24-09-2016, 11:12 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-09-2016, 10:43 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is the first time I've heard the third proposal regarding y. I am quite happy that ch and sh can be in both consonant and vowel positions. But y strikes me as not having the same qualities. Can it explain why y appears less commonly in the middle of words, and never before certain characters? I do believe that any theory concerning y has to account for its relationship with a.

I agree that y seems to be functioning primarily as a vowel or syllable nucleus.  But it's not clear what role it's playing when it follows a sequence of e's. E.g. ey, eey, etc.  Admittedly a vowel sound might not be inappropriate here either.  But I also think that y also seems to be a kind of counterpart to l, which seems to be primarily a consonant.

Why can ey and eey not be functionally equivalent to eo and eeo?

Quote:

Quote:To a broader point concerning the phonology of Voynichese: if we believe ch and sh are sometimes acting as syllabic consonants we can potentially narrow down their value. Syllabic consonants are typically sonorants, so sounds like /n, m, r, l/. (I know which of those I would put my money on.)

If you're thinking that ch and Sh might represent /n/ and /m/ (not sure which would be which), then this is also a possibility that I have considered.

I was actually thinking the opposite! Typically, if a language allows a consonant to be syllabic, it should allow all consonants of higher sonority to be syllabic. Liquids are more sonorant than nasals, thus if ch and sh are nasals, then we would expect that whatever represent /r, l/ to be syllabic too. Moreover, ch and sh are often preceded by other characters we might well assume to be consonants. For such strings to be pronounceable liquids work better.

Quote:

Quote:Though, as ever, problems arise when we consider the ends of words where ch and sh don't appear: can sonorants be forbidden in the syllable coda?

That's a good question.  I don't know.  I do know that in both Japanese and Mandarin Chinese /m/ may begin but not end a syllable, but /n/ may do both.

Uh oh, we're back to the Chinese theory. It is true that Mandarin Chinese has no syllables with liquid codas, but ones with nasal codas.

(24-09-2016, 11:46 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-09-2016, 11:12 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-09-2016, 10:43 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is the first time I've heard the third proposal regarding y. I am quite happy that ch and sh can be in both consonant and vowel positions. But y strikes me as not having the same qualities. Can it explain why y appears less commonly in the middle of words, and never before certain characters? I do believe that any theory concerning y has to account for its relationship with a.

I agree that y seems to be functioning primarily as a vowel or syllable nucleus.  But it's not clear what role it's playing when it follows a sequence of e's. E.g. ey, eey, etc.  Admittedly a vowel sound might not be inappropriate here either.  But I also think that y also seems to be a kind of counterpart to l, which seems to be primarily a consonant.

Why can ey and eey not be functionally equivalent to eo and eeo?

Quote:

Quote:To a broader point concerning the phonology of Voynichese: if we believe ch and sh are sometimes acting as syllabic consonants we can potentially narrow down their value. Syllabic consonants are typically sonorants, so sounds like /n, m, r, l/. (I know which of those I would put my money on.)

If you're thinking that ch and Sh might represent /n/ and /m/ (not sure which would be which), then this is also a possibility that I have considered.

I was actually thinking the opposite! Typically, if a language allows a consonant to be syllabic, it should allow all consonants of higher sonority to be syllabic. Liquids are more sonorant than nasals, thus if ch and sh are nasals, then we would expect that whatever represent /r, l/ to be syllabic too. Moreover, ch and sh are often preceded by other characters we might well assume to be consonants. For such strings to be pronounceable liquids work better.

Quote:

Quote:Though, as ever, problems arise when we consider the ends of words where ch and sh don't appear: can sonorants be forbidden in the syllable coda?

That's a good question.  I don't know.  I do know that in both Japanese and Mandarin Chinese /m/ may begin but not end a syllable, but /n/ may do both.

Uh oh, we're back to the Chinese theory. It is true that Mandarin Chinese has no syllables with liquid codas, but ones with nasal codas.

I believe Sam was presenting an example, not a theory.

(24-09-2016, 11:46 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why can ey and eey not be functionally equivalent to eo and eeo?

That's admittedly possible, but eo and eeo are fairly rare as word endings.

Quote:I was actually thinking the opposite! Typically, if a language allows a consonant to be syllabic, it should allow all consonants of higher sonority to be syllabic. Liquids are more sonorant than nasals, thus if ch and sh are nasals, then we would expect that whatever represent /r, l/ to be syllabic too.

Well, I did not know that, but it's not a problem if y and l are syllabic consonants representing liquids.

Quote:Moreover, ch and sh are often preceded by other characters we might well assume to be consonants. For such strings to be pronounceable liquids work better.

I don't see why this should be true.  The Wikipedia page on syllabic consonants provides counterexamples in English: A syllabic consonant or vocalic consonant is a consonant which either forms a syllable on its own, like the m, n and l in the English words rhythm, button and bottle...  In both "rhythm" and "button" you have a syllabic nasal following a consonant.

Quote:Uh oh, we're back to the Chinese theory. It is true that Mandarin Chinese has no syllables with liquid codas, but ones with nasal codas.

Well, I wasn't actually proposing a connection, just pointing out that it is possible for a language to have syllables that begin but not end with /m/.  Thinking about it some more, Hawaiian would have been a better example since in Hawaiian syllables may begin but not end with both /n/ and /m/ (Hawaiian has only open syllables).  And no, I am not suggesting that the VMS is written in Hawaiian.

Don't worry, it was a joke (that's what Guy said).

---

(25-09-2016, 12:09 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's admittedly possible, but eo and eeo are fairly rare as word endings.

They are much rarer than ey and eey, but the question is whether they are valid. If we're willing to accept that o is a vowel, and that y can be a vowel, why can we not accept they are both vowels in the same environment?

Quote:Well, I did not know that, but it's not a problem if y and l are syllabic consonants representing liquids.

Can I ask for some examples or arguments for why l is syllabic? I know that lk appears, but I doubt l is syllabic here. It could be a digraph or even perfectly reasonable as part of a cluster.

Quote:I don't see why this should be true.  The Wikipedia page on syllabic consonants provides counterexamples in English: A syllabic consonant or vocalic consonant is a consonant which either forms a syllable on its own, like the m, n and l in the English words rhythm, button and bottle...  In both "rhythm" and "button" you have a syllabic nasal following a consonant.

These only work because the following nasal is its own syllable. Onset clusters of obstruent + nasal are less common typically. Voynichese could have them but I would want to explore the alternatives first.