The Voynich Ninja

I have a request to specialists in computer processing of drawings.

Does the designated areas of the ink residues? Or is it one and the same glyph (hook).
[attachment=784]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking there Wladimir. If you are asking whether they are the same glyph, I don't think so.

If you are asking whether the downstroke has been erased, I don't think so either, but I can't do much image processing with that jpg you uploaded. I had a quick look at the originals and couldn't see any signs of erasure.

The middle glyph on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is very strangely formed. Compare it with the traditional 4o - found two words down (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), which is also missing its downstroke. This latter example is, I feel, because of a lack of ink on the quill. Your 4 is a very rounded left stroke which doesn't correspond to the normal 4.

I can't see descenders too, only some traces are visible in the fragment from the f1r. But I have no idea whether are the same glyph / meaning or different ones.

I think those are q in 8v and 49r. For 1r, it's difficult to say.

 
 
Not all the figures 1-7 can be "explained" the symbol of a slash "/" as the tail "l" or "Y".
Figure 8 and 9, the first character = "o" + "|". Such characters more than 10 in the text.
The last character in Figure 10 = "e" + "|". There is also symbol "l" has appeared on second floor.
Figure 14 and 15 new examples of code 171 v101. "/" + bracket.
If Anton doubt that the vertical line is the base, then I consider her (and possibly "/") as the basic elements of the alphabet, as "4" consists of "< " and "|" (possibly "/" + "-" + " | ") Fig. 11, 12, 13.

code 204 v101 = “|” + “-“+ ’ + “/”  +”i”   .
code 218 v101 = “e” +“-“ + “|” + “e”
code 202 v101= ”i” + “/”.

 ANTON  Actually yes, but the problem is that we don't meet it as such - at least not too often  . The examples of yours are of short vertical lines, not of tall ones.


One explanation though of why the vertical in gallows is tall is that it is deliberately made tall in gallows so as the "gallows coverage" can be enforced (I believe I already proposed that somewhere in the Forum). So, the vertical is natively short, but it is made tall in the gallows specifically for the "gallows coverage" to be possible.

But the standalone short vertical is also extremely rare, I suppose. This speaks against it being a "basic" shape. A shape that is extremely rare is not a "basic" one.

I think, what the short and long vertical line one and the same character.
The fact that vertical line can change its height and grow up in the leg of "the gallows" it can be assumed from Example 36, there the gallows is written in two steps.
Code 140 extended EVA (Fig 20, 21) with the vertical line (13) form a sickle - a code 206 extended EVA (Figure 22 - 28 ...). Look at the typical little tail (red arrow).
Figures 25, 26, 27 - the same word.
 I (temporarily) to distinguish between the apostrophe and code 140 - a large apostrophe "¬" in the glyphs "r", "s" and "sickle".

Sickle is also bigrams (syllable) "|" + "¬".

Quote:The fact that vertical line can change its height and grow up in the leg of "the gallows" it can be assumed from Example 36, there the gallows is written in two steps.

It's a question whether ex. 36 is a simple gallow (awkwardly drawn, and thus betraying that it actually "grows of" a short vertical) or it is a gallow combined with a short vertical.

The concept of gallows growing of short verticals is nice for p or f, but what about t or k?

Vladimir, how do you define "artifact"?

Basically, artifacts are regarded, for the sake of this thread, as outstanding characters in the bulk of the Voynich text volume - encountered rarely, looking weird. Generally neglected in one's Voynich theories just because unnoticed.