The Voynich Ninja

Previously, it was suggested (it seems it was JKP) that EVA-u is a hybrid of EVA-a & n. Such an intergrowth of neighboring symbols was often, especially when cursive Gothic. But the proposed example makes you think. What do you see in the red rectangle? I do not identify here EVA -l You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . EVA-u is explicitly written here, and "i" is added to it. But why is "i" tied to the upper tail "u", and not written after "u"?

[attachment=2350]

(15-09-2018, 02:50 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Previously, it was suggested (it seems it was JKP) that EVA-u is a hybrid of EVA-a & n. Such an intergrowth of neighboring symbols was often, especially when cursive Gothic. But the proposed example makes you think. What do you see in the red rectangle? I do not identify here EVA -l You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . EVA-u is explicitly written here, and "i" is added to it. But why is "i" tied to the upper tail "u", and not written after "u"?

This one doesn't look very much like a EVA-u, the loop is too low and too far on the right. It is true that the long leftward tail is missing on the EVA-l but this does happen sometimes: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. so EVA-al is not out of the question.

The TT transcript (on voynichese.com) does not use EVA-u: it is interpreted as EVA-a+n. I believe that there are many more instances where a stroke is shared between two adjacent glyphs, thus creating a ligature or "weirdo".

Example: EVA-ch+a in line 27v.3.

EVA-a+r in f78r.

(15-09-2018, 02:50 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Previously, it was suggested (it seems it was JKP) that EVA-u is a hybrid of EVA-a & n. Such an intergrowth of neighboring symbols was often, especially when cursive Gothic. But the proposed example makes you think. What do you see in the red rectangle? I do not identify here EVA -l You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . EVA-u is explicitly written here, and "i" is added to it. But why is "i" tied to the upper tail "u", and not written after "u"?

Really difficult to say. It may well be just [-al-].

(15-09-2018, 06:03 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.EVA-a+r in f78r.

Such examples are really interesting from the perspective of trying to understand the system behind the alphabet. This one is not "ar", not "cr", and not "air". What is it, then, and why is it needed? In contrast to many Voynechese glyphs, this is a triplet (there are some other ones, also).

(15-09-2018, 09:29 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Such examples are really interesting from the perspective of trying to understand the system behind the alphabet. This one is not "ar", not "cr", and not "air". What is it, then, and why is it needed? In contrast to many Voynechese glyphs, this is a triplet (there are some other ones, also).

I am presenting this hypothesis of two "fused" glyphs, with a stroke in common, as an alternative to the Latin abbreviation hypothesis. It covers some ligatures too:

f5v.2: {sy} = Sh+y
f15v.7, f28v.7: {co} = ch+o
f44r.7, f52r.7: {cs} = ch+s
f44v.8: {cTy} = cTh+y
etc.

It could just be a shorter variant of the normal writing, with unknown purpose. On the other hand the plume or tail is sometimes clearly separate, which may be an indication that something else is going on - maybe these cases (ex.: 52r.7 and 86v5.28 below) should be interpreted differently. A separate plume just like the one in 86v5.28 is sometimes mistaken for an EVA-n after EVA-i even though its shape and position are different; for example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In Latin, "fused glyphs" are called ligatures and they are as much a part of Latin script as abbreviations. In fact, some of the Latin abbreviations are also ligatures.


For example, adding a tail to a letter (like adding a tail to e or c or t or r) is normal practice. Shapes like EVA-r and EVA-s are not just normal in Latin, they are common. The tail is not an embellishment, it has meaning. Sometimes it is intepreted the same as the macron (which usually stands for n or m) and sometimes it stands for the same thing as the "smoke symbol" apostrophe, which often represents "er".

Another very common ligature (fused glyph) in Latin is cc/ec/er/et/ce, which looks like EVA-ch in Voynichese.

Edit [addition]:  Here are some examples. These aren't the best, they are what I could grab quickly, but it's probably enough to give the idea:

(17-09-2018, 10:47 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Latin, "fused glyphs" are called ligatures and they are as much a part of Latin script as abbreviations. In fact, some of the Latin abbreviations are also ligatures.

Maybe fused is not the right word then (is hybrid clearer?) to get the meaning across.  I am positing a "write once read twice" system for individual strokes resulting in cases that look like simple ligatures such as {co} = ch+o and also in some complex benched gallows such as (f11r.5) SHPh = Sh+cPh.

The thing about Latin scribal abbreviations/ligatures is that there weren't any rules (it's better to think of them as conventions), which means scribes could apply them as they liked and, as long as they fit the logic of how that symbol was used, other scribes could read them.


For example, the "-is" abbreviation (the symbol that looks like the loop on m and g) was generally used at the ends of words. Most scribes didn't put it in the middles of words, but... some did, and it was still perfectly readable.

The word cistus (a kind of wild rose) is usually written cisty (cist + [us]), but occasionally it was written gm (cis+tis) and this less common variation was perfectly readable.

(17-09-2018, 09:52 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It could just be a shorter variant of the normal writing, with unknown purpose. 

Well, one interesting purpose may be not to write two gallows in a row. From this point of view these funny ligatures may be shorthands for gallow+gallow.

One can also try more general approach: ligature is shorthand of what we usually do not see in the manuscript. Two gallows in a row and comma/point are the most famous examples. But there are more - combination gallow+r is even rarer(!) than gallow+gallow, gallow+s is also very rare...

The author obviously avoids writing two tall letters in a row, but the underlying language probably allows undesirable combinations, so maybe that's why need for composed symbols arises.

I think some of the fancy gallows (the ones that are stacked vertically) might be a way of writing gallows + gallows. There are several of them. There's even one that looks like it might be a triple gallows. They are distinct from the embellished gallows. The look more like they follow a "formula" for combining them.