23-02-2017, 09:34 PM
Rene: it's good that you make this thread because I also wondered what you meant precisely.
I don't fully understand yet.
I see why it is problematic if someone maps one-to-one sounds to Voynichese glyphs. But does that mean that they are not letters? Couldn't we just explain this by positing "several-to-several" mapping?
In English, for example, several-to-several also works. The sound "k" can be represented by "c, k, q, C, K, Q" and I probably missed some. And the reverse is true as well. "k, K" can also be a null for example, and "C, c" can be an s.
The difference is that in Voynichese these varieties are very position dependent. A "k" will be represented differently in word-initial position than it is in the middle of a word, and so on.
So if you say that Voynichese can't be the result of one-to-one substitution, I agree. But I don't see how you can make the step from there to saying that gallows aren't letters.
I don't fully understand yet.
I see why it is problematic if someone maps one-to-one sounds to Voynichese glyphs. But does that mean that they are not letters? Couldn't we just explain this by positing "several-to-several" mapping?
In English, for example, several-to-several also works. The sound "k" can be represented by "c, k, q, C, K, Q" and I probably missed some. And the reverse is true as well. "k, K" can also be a null for example, and "C, c" can be an s.
The difference is that in Voynichese these varieties are very position dependent. A "k" will be represented differently in word-initial position than it is in the middle of a word, and so on.
So if you say that Voynichese can't be the result of one-to-one substitution, I agree. But I don't see how you can make the step from there to saying that gallows aren't letters.
