Expert Opinions on 'daiin'

[Skoove]

I was wondering if anyone has links to (or could summarise) any expert opinions on 'daiin'?

I've seen that older transliterations would render it as 'dam' whilst newer transliterations render it as 'daiin' but is this just preference or did handwriting experts play a role in this? I mostly ask because I am always conflicted as whether to take 'iin' as a single glyph or three glyphs 

Thank you all!

[ReneZ]

In my opinion, "aiin" is a single unit.
As a second opinion, the space following it may very well not be a word break.

[Mark Knowles]

I take the word daiin, like many of the most common words, to very likely be a filler word and as such a null with no meaning other than to distract or confuse. (This does not however necessary mean that daiin is null when it constitutes part of a longer word though it is possible that it may be.) I would also be inclined to the view that aiin is a single glyph. I think the space following daiin is a word break where a clear space can be seen. I think Voynichese words do correspond to actual words, although some Voynichese words are meaningless filler words.

[Koen G]

In my opinion, "aiin" is a single unit.

This has been my intuition about it for years already, though I remember when I first proposed it that it was being called "unpalatable". Forgot by whom though... maybe Nick Pelling.

What do you mean with the space not being a word break though? About daiin in particular, or about Voynichese "spaces" in general?

[Mark Knowles]

Of course if "aiin" is a single unit it does point with other things to there being a significantly greater number of glyphs than the small number of glyphs, consistent with a normal European alphabet, that people often point to Voynichese containing. Unfortunately less common glyphs are often ignored when looking at the manuscript and so the number of different glyphs is easily ignored.

[Antonio García Jiménez]

For me, as much as the meaning of aiin or whether or not it is a single unit, what is relevant is the fact that there exists in the script not only aiin but also ain and aiiin, in addition to oin, oiin and oiiin.

[Koen G]

Unfortunately less common glyphs are often ignored when looking at the manuscript and so the number of different glyphs is easily ignored.

Because uncommon glyphs don't count towards your alphabet - they can't "work" for you, as it were. It's more like finding some numerals (1, 2, 3) or rare abbreviation symbols here and there and then pretending like the system is behaving normally because you counted enough glyphs for an alphabet.

It's also more complicated than just making new glyphs, because where you gain [aiin], you lose the "glyphhood" of [i, n] and eventually [a]. You will end up with more "letters" at the end of the ride, but those are still appearing in very constrained positions, so you may need to reduce them again by considering positional variation.

[Mark Knowles]

Unfortunately less common glyphs are often ignored when looking at the manuscript and so the number of different glyphs is easily ignored.

Because uncommon glyphs don't count towards your alphabet - they can't "work" for you, as it were. 

You don't know what "my alphabet" is. It seems to me that there are more glyphs than in a normal alphabet. I said nothing about working for me. So, I don't know what you mean by this.

It's more like finding some numerals (1, 2, 3) or rare abbreviation symbols here and there and then pretending like the system is behaving normally because you counted enough glyphs for an alphabet.

I have never said that the system is behaving normally, but I have my own explanation for this. I am not pretending anything. I really don't know what you are talking about again.

It's also more complicated than just making new glyphs, because where you gain [aiin], you lose the "glyphhood" of [i, n] and eventually [a]. You will end up with more "letters" at the end of the ride, but those are still appearing in very constrained positions, so you may need to reduce them again by considering positional variation.

You don't necessarily lose "a" or "n". It is possible to have "a", "n", "ain", "aiin" and "aiiin" as separate glyphs.

I don't see why you need to reduce them by considering positional variation.

[Mark Knowles]

Having read through the whole text recently I would say there are quite a few different glyphs that I wasn't aware of before.

[Mark Knowles]

For me, as much as the meaning of aiin or whether or not it is a single unit, what is relevant is the fact that there exists in the script not only aiin but also ain and aiiin, in addition to oin, oiin and oiiin.

My inclination is towards there being a large range of distinct glyphs in Voynichese even if some of those glyphs may occur rarely or even very rarely. I am open to the idea that there may be glyphs that occur only once or twice in the manuscript.