23-02-2017, 11:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 24-02-2017, 12:08 AM by -JKP-.
Edit Reason: Fixed typo: since = seen
)
Koen, if you look back at some of my previous posts about the text, you'll notice that I almost always mention that some glyphs may function as "modifiers" or "markers", which are similar (sometimes overlapping) but not identical concepts. I just assumed that anyone who had really studied the text would understand what I mean, but not everyone has concentrated on the text, so perhaps it's worth mentioning what I mean when I say that.
In natural language, there are no precedents for the behavior of EVA-y. Notice that it occurs mainly in the last position, sometimes in the first position, and rarely in the middle of vords. It doesn't behave as letters do in syllabic languages or abjads. It does LOOK like a Latin abbreviation (perhaps intentionally), but its behavior is too un-natural-language-like even if it's expanded as a Latin abbreviation. It is simply too frequent and regimented. Many languages have a vowel at the ends of words, but it is too constrained even if it represents several vowels, and occurs too infrequently in the middle of vords for something that's mapped to vowels.
So... some people might make the argument that maybe EVA-y is a vowel (or several vowels) and something else is used to represent vowels in the middles of words. But as soon as one makes this kind of argument (that more than one glyph can represent a specific letter or kind of letter), then the necessary character set becomes large, and the VMS character set is not large. The same argument applies if it's a consonant (it's less likely that a specific consonant would occur at the ends of words than a set of vowels, but it's possible)—the character set would need to be larger than the existing VMS glyph set.
If one then argues that EVA-y is a null (which is quite possible), then again one is plagued by a reduced character set and unusually short words and the only way one can reconcile the increased difference from natural language it is by re-evaluating the spaces.
Also, in natural languages, there are no precedents for a letter occurring as does the VMS "o", not even in languages where "al-" or "the" or various articles or joining words occur very frequently at the beginning (note that in some languages "and" is attached to the beginning of a word rather than standing separately). It is possible that "o" functions as marker, modifier, or conjunction (or something similar), but if it does, and if one still insists (as some do), that it's a vowel, then not all of the "o" glyphs function in a similar manner and one would have to investigate the possibility of dual-purpose glyphs (which is not an unreasonable idea, give that the position of glyphs is one of the more striking aspects of the text). In other words, if "o" functions as a vowel in some parts of the manuscript (and I haven't seen a convincing argument to prove this yet but will accept it as one possibility), then I'm pretty sure it is ALSO doing something else.
Now... all these arguments are very specific in the sense that they apply only if one maintains that the VMS is natural language. If it is not (and I am leaning about 65% in the direction of "not"), then there's no need to impose natural language expectations on the text and it can be structured any way the creator wants.
In natural language, there are no precedents for the behavior of EVA-y. Notice that it occurs mainly in the last position, sometimes in the first position, and rarely in the middle of vords. It doesn't behave as letters do in syllabic languages or abjads. It does LOOK like a Latin abbreviation (perhaps intentionally), but its behavior is too un-natural-language-like even if it's expanded as a Latin abbreviation. It is simply too frequent and regimented. Many languages have a vowel at the ends of words, but it is too constrained even if it represents several vowels, and occurs too infrequently in the middle of vords for something that's mapped to vowels.
So... some people might make the argument that maybe EVA-y is a vowel (or several vowels) and something else is used to represent vowels in the middles of words. But as soon as one makes this kind of argument (that more than one glyph can represent a specific letter or kind of letter), then the necessary character set becomes large, and the VMS character set is not large. The same argument applies if it's a consonant (it's less likely that a specific consonant would occur at the ends of words than a set of vowels, but it's possible)—the character set would need to be larger than the existing VMS glyph set.
If one then argues that EVA-y is a null (which is quite possible), then again one is plagued by a reduced character set and unusually short words and the only way one can reconcile the increased difference from natural language it is by re-evaluating the spaces.
Also, in natural languages, there are no precedents for a letter occurring as does the VMS "o", not even in languages where "al-" or "the" or various articles or joining words occur very frequently at the beginning (note that in some languages "and" is attached to the beginning of a word rather than standing separately). It is possible that "o" functions as marker, modifier, or conjunction (or something similar), but if it does, and if one still insists (as some do), that it's a vowel, then not all of the "o" glyphs function in a similar manner and one would have to investigate the possibility of dual-purpose glyphs (which is not an unreasonable idea, give that the position of glyphs is one of the more striking aspects of the text). In other words, if "o" functions as a vowel in some parts of the manuscript (and I haven't seen a convincing argument to prove this yet but will accept it as one possibility), then I'm pretty sure it is ALSO doing something else.
Now... all these arguments are very specific in the sense that they apply only if one maintains that the VMS is natural language. If it is not (and I am leaning about 65% in the direction of "not"), then there's no need to impose natural language expectations on the text and it can be structured any way the creator wants.
