(12-09-2016, 05:24 PM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-09-2016, 04:37 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are so many examples of [q] where the character looks exactly like the left half of [t], and many like you describe where the left half of a [t] looks like a [q]. There must have been some connection between the two characters in the writer's head. Either the strokes were exactly the same and so he made the mistake unconsciously, or that there was some link between their meaning and the writer became confused as to which one he wanted.

I'm agnostic over whether there is a link between [q] and gallows characters, but would be happy to hear any theories or further insights.

I've wondered about that theory also. You are definitely right that they look similar. I wonder though if we do the same thing when we write our own alphabet: for example the change between [O] and [Q] or between [b,p,g,q] or [v,w] - or even [r,n,m]...

(12-09-2016, 05:24 PM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-09-2016, 04:37 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are so many examples of [q] where the character looks exactly like the left half of [t], and many like you describe where the left half of a [t] looks like a [q]. There must have been some connection between the two characters in the writer's head. Either the strokes were exactly the same and so he made the mistake unconsciously, or that there was some link between their meaning and the writer became confused as to which one he wanted.

I'm agnostic over whether there is a link between [q] and gallows characters, but would be happy to hear any theories or further insights.

I've wondered about that theory also. You are definitely right that they look similar. I wonder though if we do the same thing when we write our own alphabet: for example the change between [O] and [Q] or between [b,p,g,q] or [v,w] - or even [r,n,m]...

• In Latin -ris and -cis are drawn exactly the same as in the VMS.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is drawn exactly the same as in the VMS (as a 9 shape).
  
• In Latin -ris and -cis are almost always at the ends of words. In the VMS, they are almost always at the ends of vords.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is sometimes at the beginning, occasionally in the middle, and frequently at the end. The VMS uses it exactly the same way.
  
• In Latin, the descender on -ris and -cis are sometimes shorter. In the VMS they are sometimes shorter.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is sometimes in-line and sometimes superscripted, depending on scribe, language, and context. Same in the VMS. Usually in-line but you can find it superscripted.
  

Emma May Smith Wrote:It's frustrating because we simply don't know what is significant and what is not.

(12-09-2016, 10:59 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am 100% sure that the Eva-q is based on the Latin 9 abbreviation, just as I am 100% sure that the j shapes are based on the Latin -ris and -cis shapes. I've mentioned this many times, blogged about it, and given visual examples as well.

• In Latin -ris and -cis are drawn exactly the same as in the VMS.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is drawn exactly the same as in the VMS (as a 9 shape).
  
• In Latin -ris and -cis are almost always at the ends of words. In the VMS, they are almost always at the ends of vords.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is sometimes at the beginning, occasionally in the middle, and frequently at the end. The VMS uses it exactly the same way.
  
• In Latin, the descender on -ris and -cis are sometimes shorter. In the VMS they are sometimes shorter.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is sometimes in-line and sometimes superscripted, depending on scribe, language, and context. Same in the VMS. Usually in-line but you can find it superscripted.
  

There's really no doubt about their morphological origin. To a modern eye, the similarity between Latin "a" and "o" and the VMS glyphs is obvious. To a medieval paelographer, the similarity between Eva-q and Latin 9 is obvious.


What is not known is what they represent. In Latin -ris is a ligature combining "r" and the abbreviation for "is". In Voynichese, it could be a single letter or sound, an abbreviation, a marker, or something else. Borrowing a shape from Latin doesn't mean it means the same thing.

(13-09-2016, 12:35 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-09-2016, 10:59 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am 100% sure that the Eva-q is based on the Latin 9 abbreviation, just as I am 100% sure that the j shapes are based on the Latin -ris and -cis shapes. I've mentioned this many times, blogged about it, and given visual examples as well.

• In Latin -ris and -cis are drawn exactly the same as in the VMS.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is drawn exactly the same as in the VMS (as a 9 shape).
  
• In Latin -ris and -cis are almost always at the ends of words. In the VMS, they are almost always at the ends of vords.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is sometimes at the beginning, occasionally in the middle, and frequently at the end. The VMS uses it exactly the same way.
  
• In Latin, the descender on -ris and -cis are sometimes shorter. In the VMS they are sometimes shorter.
  
• In Latin, Eva-q is sometimes in-line and sometimes superscripted, depending on scribe, language, and context. Same in the VMS. Usually in-line but you can find it superscripted.
  

There's really no doubt about their morphological origin. To a modern eye, the similarity between Latin "a" and "o" and the VMS glyphs is obvious. To a medieval paelographer, the similarity between Eva-q and Latin 9 is obvious.


What is not known is what they represent. In Latin -ris is a ligature combining "r" and the abbreviation for "is". In Voynichese, it could be a single letter or sound, an abbreviation, a marker, or something else. Borrowing a shape from Latin doesn't mean it means the same thing.

Those are all good points - many people have looked at the frequent 9 at the end and thought of Latin, because that would explain several Latin case endings: is, os, us, es. At the beginning of a word it could be the Latin prefix "con-/com-", and standing alone it would mean "cum" (the preposition "with"). I hope to God that the author didn't use this setup, and I REALLY hope he didn't mix languages (i.e. a German text with Latin abbreviations).

(13-09-2016, 12:40 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hate to tell you this, but German/Italian/Spanish/French/English text with Latin abbreviations was normal in the 15th century.

The c and r shapes that have tails are also normal Latin abbreviations, although they are not used quite as frequently as -ris, -tis, -cis, con-/com-, -us/-um, and -rum when applied to languages other than Latin.

(08-09-2016, 09:08 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.*faints*

(12-09-2016, 09:14 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Wladimir:

A very good suggestion IMO!

q + z

(25-02-2017, 12:25 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, Wladimir kindly provided me with some figures and comments out of band (don't remember if they were already posted in the "Artefacts" thread), and the matter stands so far as follows:

Simple gallows:

p - yes
f - yes
t - yes
k - no

Benched gallows featuring...

p - yes
f - no
t - yes
k - no

I also need to add that I recognize the type of gallows (simple vs benched)  for the coverage by the leading (not the trailing) leg.

This given, the following trail of reasoning may be pursued.

Gallows (and gallows-containing composites such as EVA &130; ) are the only characters containing a vertical that do raise above the line. Other characters containing a vertical do not raise above the line. For example, q does not. Neither does z (although its vertical is shortened and probably is not the same as the vertical in gallows - indeed, otherwise it would not be possible to distinguish it from k). Neither does EVA &206; (see e.g. f68r1, line 3).

So the question is there: why do the gallows need to raise above the line? For the benched gallows the answer is evident: because otherwise there would have been no place for the loops.

But what about simple gallows? As I wrote elsewhere (maybe in this very thread above), the reasonable answer is that they raise above the line so as to enable the gallows coverage. If they did not, the gallows coverage would not have been possible.

But of the four simple gallows one - namely, the k character, - does not exhibit gallows coverage. So why would it need to raise above the line? The answer that I can think of is that when putting down the text it is not known in advance which gallows is to be used. The vertical is first put down, and only then - when the nearby characters are put down, the gallows is completed to be one of the particular types.

What do you think?