+- 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 Origin of [sh] (/thread-2440.html)
The Origin of [sh] - Emma May Smith - 24-07-2018
I want to offer an hypothesis concerning the origin of Sh. It's not strictly an explanation but a possible insight. I'm not sure it's true so I would like the opinions of others.
I guess we all agree that the lower part of Sh is the same as ch? And that the only difference is the 'plume', 'hat', topstroke, whatever you want to call it?
I think that when writing Sh the scribe wrote ch first and added the topstroke last. Would others agree?
If so, how long after the ch was the topstroke written? Can we show that it was written immediately after or that (at least in some cases) other glyphs were written between the ch and the addition of the topstroke? Would the lightness/darkness of the topstroke provide evidence?
Although I'm very uncertain about this hypothesis, I think it could serve to make an important point: whether ch and Sh are different glyphs, or the same glyph with different environments. The topstroke could be indicating that a later glyph/sound/part was omitted or altered.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - ReneZ - 24-07-2018
This is a very important observation.
I don't have an answer, but I consider it a very important question. This is why:
It seems that many different things have been retouched:
- the text in Voynichese script
- the drawings (e.g. the nymphs in the zodiac)
- the writing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Nick Pelling has written quite a bit about the last two points, and I think that he is right, *but*:
I daresay that it is impossible to judge whether the retouching was done:
- a few days later
- months or a few years later
- decennia or more later
These three options (and everything in between) has completely different implications.
The re-touching could have been done by the original author/scribe, to emphasise something that came out too faint, or (in case of the drawings) it could have been a planned 'second' pass.
Or it could have been a change. Either by the original author/scribe or someone else, later.
If one looks at this page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
under the heading "Jim's colour slides" there is the observation (made decades ago) that the curl above was written first. By now, I don't believe that anymore, and what was seen was a retouching.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - Koen G - 24-07-2018
Emma, do you mean it was like one would dot one's i's at the end of a long word as opposed to immediately after writing the i? Because in that case you could see whether there is more of a difference in longer words with sh near the beginning.
I'm not sure I understand what the implication could be though. Both diacritics and actual parts of glyphs can be applied after having written the whole word.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - Anton - 24-07-2018
Quote:I guess we all agree that the lower part of Sh is the same as ch? And that the only difference is the 'plume', 'hat', topstroke, whatever you want to call it?
There may be outsiders somewhere, but for the most occurrences I think that's the case. Importantly, it is generally e plus h (not c plus e), and the EVA transcription reflects that.
Quote:I think that when writing Sh the scribe wrote ch first and added the topstroke last. Would others agree?
Same here, I think that is what is the general practice. The manner in which the apostrophe is put down, oftentimes carelessly crossing the horisontal bar, indicates that.
Quote:If so, how long after the ch was the topstroke written? Can we show that it was written immediately after or that (at least in some cases) other glyphs were written between the ch and the addition of the topstroke? Would the lightness/darkness of the topstroke provide evidence?
I think this is impossible to tell from what we know. Provided it's written after the ch is put down, the lightness of the stroke may be the same whether it's put down immediately or later (say, in a single pass for the whole folio). Some particular instances may provide the clue, but they are yet to be found (Wladimir?!...)
RE: The Origin of [sh] - Emma May Smith - 24-07-2018
(24-07-2018, 10:24 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Emma, do you mean it was like one would dot one's i's at the end of a long word as opposed to immediately after writing the i? Because in that case you could see whether there is more of a difference in longer words with sh near the beginning.
I'm not sure I understand what the implication could be though. Both diacritics and actual parts of glyphs can be applied after having written the whole word.
I suppose it's true that parts of a glyph could genuinely be added later. I think that we would have to use this as only part of the evidence.
The implication is that the cause/environment/context for Sh[font=Arial] may not be the adjacent glyphs but those a little further away. My specific thought is that another glyph may be partly 'transferred' to this location and become the topstroke. I'm sorry it's so vague, but it's just a hunch.[/font]
RE: The Origin of [sh] - DONJCH - 24-07-2018
Wasn't there something in another thread about Zodiac labels alternating between chedy/shedy in a kind of yin/yang fashion? Actually usage in labels per se could be informative.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - Emma May Smith - 24-07-2018
I'm not aware of that, but sounds potentially very interesting.
What actually sparked my thinking was an observation Marco and I discussed some time ago. Although e occurs very rarely at the end of a word (some may even be transcription mistakes), in more than half those cases it is preceded by either Sh or another e which is in turn preceded by Sh. A word ending e looks like it is 'missing' something from the end. What if that missing something had been moved over to the Sh[font=Arial]?[/font]
I'm still unsure what exact shape the hypothesis should take, or how the majority of Sh relate to the initial observation, but I'm unable to dismiss the feeling that there's something vaguely right about the idea.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - DONJCH - 24-07-2018
Ah, so the range of your proposed environment shift is only one vord?
I was envisaging something wider, more like a parenthesis or a quotation.
So the label observation may not be helpful but just in case it's the first post of this thread:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - Koen G - 25-07-2018
Right, so if it would appear that the ink run between ch and its hat is more often interrupted than that between ch and the following glyph, then together with statistical evidence you could build a case for the hat being an invader from a later position. An interesting thought. Though I wonder if there are ever enough glyphs after ch to cause a change to the ink. Can't watch the scans right now.
RE: The Origin of [sh] - -JKP- - 25-07-2018
(24-07-2018, 09:59 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I guess we all agree that the lower part of Sh is the same as ch? And that the only difference is the 'plume', 'hat', topstroke, whatever you want to call it?
It seems that way to me (that the only difference is the cap). In Latin this shape is a curved macron (very common), but I usually say "cap" so as not to presume it is actually a macron (maybe it is, maybe it isn't).
Quote:I think that when writing Sh the scribe wrote ch first and added the topstroke last. Would others agree?
Yes, I think so.
Quote:If so, how long after the ch was the topstroke written? Can we show that it was written immediately after or that (at least in some cases) other glyphs were written between the ch and the addition of the topstroke? Would the lightness/darkness of the topstroke provide evidence?
Good question. Yes, the lightness/darkness of the stroke might provide evidence.
Quote:Although I'm very uncertain about this hypothesis, I think it could serve to make an important point: whether ch and Sh are different glyphs, or the same glyph with different environments. The topstroke could be indicating that a later glyph/sound/part was omitted or altered.
In Latin, the bench shape is quite common. Since the letters c, e, t, and some forms of r were written quite similarly, they were often combined as a ligature that comes out looking like a bench. Even 'ci" writtten as a ligature looks like a bench if it is a scribe who writes letters like "t" and "i" with a curved stem and who adds a serif to the leg of the "i".
So, in languages that use Latin conventions, the bench may be read as "cr", for example, but if you add the cap (in Latin, a macron), then it is usually read as "cer". Similarly if the bench represents "ct" (such as in the word "act") then adding a macron changes it to "cet" or "cert" or whatever fits the situation.
Now, in Voynichese, it could be anything! sh could be a ligature, an abbreviation, a single glyph, a number, or a symbol. I don't know what it is, but there are differences between ch and sh in frequency and, to some extent, in behavior.
Also, the cap itself has several forms. I've been struggling for a significant time to try to figure out if the difference in the forms is meaningful. In Latin they would be. For example, sometimes the "cap" is very deliberately connected to the top of the first cee-shape (similar to EVA-s) and at other times, it is very deliberately connected to the FOOT of the curve. It does not look like a slip of the hand, it looks deliberate. Which means... PERHAPS sh is not one glyph (or one ligature or abbreviation), it might be two or three or four different glyphs.
However! I DON'T get the impression the shape of the cap matters, only the way it is connected. The shape is all over the place, but the way it is connected (at least in some parts of the manuscript) is what seems deliberate.
Sorry, that's a lot of information but... I've spent a lot of time looking at individual glyphs in the VMS (and doing the exhausting work of creating transcripts) and those are things I've noticed that MIGHT be relevant to the interpretation of ch/sh.
It's a devil of a manuscript. Both in the text and the drawings it provides JUST enough information to suggest, "There's something here," but not quite enough to show what it is.