The Voynich Ninja
The Impossibility of Double Gallows - Printable Version

+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: The Impossibility of Double Gallows (/thread-129.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - farmerjohn - 26-10-2016

(26-10-2016, 01:49 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How is this conclusion reached? Huh
On the one hand we have situation, when gallow letters do not usually follow each other (for some unknown reason), but can follow each other.
On the other hand we have a glyph (y in the middle) which occurs almost always* near gallow.
Then the conclusion that y replace some gallow in certain situations is the simplest one. And it's f, I suppose.

*65% is pretty far from "almost always". But I just did rough calculations with text editor...
In 95%+ of cases y in the middle appears either near gallow, or near d, s, r. And there is at least one gallow letter which tries to avoid standing next to d, s, or r (because of their shapes and subsequent issues with spacing, I believe). This gallow letter also never stands adjacent to another gallow (other three do - see examples of Emma May Smith). It's f.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - -JKP- - 27-10-2016

Perhaps this is a double gallows, one on top of the other:

[Image: 14rComboGallows.jpg]


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - Wladimir D - 27-10-2016

I also think, and wrote in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In the text there is one example of sequential writing two gallows on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . However, this case can be described as two words.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - -JKP- - 27-10-2016

(27-10-2016, 06:00 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also think, and wrote in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In the text there is one example of sequential writing two gallows on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . However, this case can be described as two words.


Good example, Wladimir, and we don't really know if it's two words. They're as close together as they can be without the second one crowding the loop on the first one.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - Anton - 28-10-2016

Quote:On the one hand we have situation, when gallow letters do not usually follow each other (for some unknown reason), but can follow each other.
On the other hand we have a glyph (y in the middle) which occurs almost always* near gallow.
Then the conclusion that y replace some gallow in certain situations is the simplest one. And it's f, I suppose.

Sorry, I still fail to understand the trail of logic here. In my opinion, it is the same thing as suggesting that (in a real language) if letter two follows (or precedes) letter one quite often, then letter two is a "replacement" for letter one.

If "H" frequently follows "T" in English language, and much less frequently follows any other character (space excluded), does that mean that "H" is a "replacement" for "T"? Surely not.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - farmerjohn - 29-10-2016

Anton, obviously I wasn't clear enough.

I can think of the following sample from Russian. Prefix без [b'ez] is used only before voiced consonants and бес [b'es] only before voiceless ones. Now imagine these are the only prefixes in the language. Obvious conclusion is that these are merely different forms of one prefix.

Now rough sample from English. Endings [t], [id], [d], etc. Each of them is used in certain cases, depending on the previous sound. These cases are mutually exclusive (at least image it's true Big Grin ). One can conclude that these endings are forms of just one ending (ed).

Return to Voynichese. A glyph, say F, is used in some situations, and never in others. Another glyph, say Y, is used in other situations, but never in some. Additionally, there is no natural restriction which prohibits using F in other situations and it looks as if F could be used in other situations. May be F does appear in other situations, but only in some other form?
So imho the equivalence of F and Y is the first possibility to be checked.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - farmerjohn - 26-10-2018

The topic by Emma May Smith was probably about adjacent gallows in a word, but what about adjacent gallows belonging to different words? I wasn't able to find info on that and according to my own calculations (based on Stolfi's transcription) there are three cases:

f94r, lines 6-7: qof pchedar
f103r, end of line 3: ot kar (not very reliable because of stain)
f105r, lines 12-13: ot kesoar (these clearly belong to different paragraphs)


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - VViews - 26-10-2018

As you mention, the 103r one is not reliable because of the stain: using the jasondavies site for a zoomed view, there does appear to be a faint remnant of a sh type character in between the two:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In both of the other cases, there is a line break in between the two, and in the second one, as you note there is a paragraph break.
Anyway, it's interesting that even taking into account line/paragraph breaks, Emma May Smith's observation that double gallows appear to be extremely rare still holds true.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - ChenZheChina - 30-10-2018

I saw these combinations in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but am not sure whether they should be viewed as “double gallow” or not:

Possible tk in Line 7, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=2465]
Takahashi Takeshi: “qekar”
René Zandbergen: “q@145;kar”

Possible tf in Line 2, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=2467]
Takahashi Takeshi: “qef”
René Zandbergen: “qef”

Possible tk in Line 17, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=2464]
Takahashi Takeshi: “qlky”
René Zandbergen: “{q@145;}ky”

I wonder if it could be one EVA-t and one EVA-k / EVA-f, with the first gallow written a bit smaller so they do not conflict too much.

If they are actually EVA-t and EVA-k / EVA-f, the three words would be tkar, tf and tky, respectively.

However, I have also noticed that there is a contradicting evidence:

Line 10, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=2466]
Takahashi Takeshi: “q?or”
René Zandbergen: “q[?:e]or”

In this case, the rare character that look similar to characters above, is not before another gallow character.


RE: The Impossibility of Double Gallows - -JKP- - 30-10-2018

(30-10-2018, 12:29 PM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view...


Possible tf in Line 2, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=2467]


I'm pretty sure this is qef with a long tail on f. There is a pen skip on the descender for the q just as there is a pen skip in some of the other glyphs around it.

The q is not always followed by "o", it can be followed by quite a few glyphs, including e.