11-05-2017, 09:03 PM
At least we're on the same page; that's an accomplishment. And perhaps I posted something that you find interesting, but after that everything is up in the air. It doesn't seem to me that you are interpreting the White Aries illustration in any way that is similar to what I suggested - through the use of traditional armorial and ecclesiastical, heraldic elements represented in the illustration. Instead you have gone off on some astronomical track, that I do not follow as substantiated in this representation.
Where you have 'Cassiop', I could have argued that the label said 'Ottobuono', for that is the identity of the historical person that armorial and church heraldry, plus other factors, have depicted. History is clear about the Fieschi involvement in the tradition of the red galero. The illustration is clear, but I make no claim to understand the language - if there is one.
In your interpretation the 'translated' words Triangle, Perseus and Lynceus all come from VMs labels that start with the same two glyphs. How is this supposed to come about? EVA 'o' has so many possible equivalents in the cipher disk - as do all the most used symbols. With each VMs Glyph now converted to a set of letter equivalents, translation (as I understand it) now occurs by taking a letter equivalent from each set in sequence with the intention of forming a recognizable word.
Even if we are to accept all the assumptions that this is based on Alberti's cipher disk, starting from a specific setting, and using the same specific sequence of letters in the inner ring, how are we to know the difference between words the author intended and words that just crop up because the sample size in each set of letter equivalents is large enough to contain these various interpretations by chance? Even if letters in a sequence are random, some sequences will be words. Here you are intentionally choosing to make words.
In my view this requires too many assumptions and may be too far removed from the VMs itself. We have to work with what the VMs gives us. As I see it, the VMs gives us two things that may help to understand the language. The first is on White Aries and uses historical grounding to indicate the significance of the marked passages in the circular bands of text. The second thing is the Four by Seventeen symbol sequence of f57v. With these two things, we may have what we need to start to understand VMs language. We have both the object, in the circular band of text. and the method, in the workings of the symbol sequence. The problem is to discover how these two innate parts will work together. And it is an area where a collaborative approach might be beneficial in stimulating ideas and in building a solution with a consensus base.
Where you have 'Cassiop', I could have argued that the label said 'Ottobuono', for that is the identity of the historical person that armorial and church heraldry, plus other factors, have depicted. History is clear about the Fieschi involvement in the tradition of the red galero. The illustration is clear, but I make no claim to understand the language - if there is one.
In your interpretation the 'translated' words Triangle, Perseus and Lynceus all come from VMs labels that start with the same two glyphs. How is this supposed to come about? EVA 'o' has so many possible equivalents in the cipher disk - as do all the most used symbols. With each VMs Glyph now converted to a set of letter equivalents, translation (as I understand it) now occurs by taking a letter equivalent from each set in sequence with the intention of forming a recognizable word.
Even if we are to accept all the assumptions that this is based on Alberti's cipher disk, starting from a specific setting, and using the same specific sequence of letters in the inner ring, how are we to know the difference between words the author intended and words that just crop up because the sample size in each set of letter equivalents is large enough to contain these various interpretations by chance? Even if letters in a sequence are random, some sequences will be words. Here you are intentionally choosing to make words.
In my view this requires too many assumptions and may be too far removed from the VMs itself. We have to work with what the VMs gives us. As I see it, the VMs gives us two things that may help to understand the language. The first is on White Aries and uses historical grounding to indicate the significance of the marked passages in the circular bands of text. The second thing is the Four by Seventeen symbol sequence of f57v. With these two things, we may have what we need to start to understand VMs language. We have both the object, in the circular band of text. and the method, in the workings of the symbol sequence. The problem is to discover how these two innate parts will work together. And it is an area where a collaborative approach might be beneficial in stimulating ideas and in building a solution with a consensus base.