Simon Wayman "decoded partial analysis"

[-JKP-]

So what Wayman proposed in this video is that Star 3 (which he interprets as possibly being Althoraya) shows up six times with slightly altered names, as follows:

otcheody
otochedy
otcheodar
otchody
tochedy
oteeody

If we look at each one individually in the context of the VMS:

• otcheody is a rare Vword.
  
• otochedy is found on many of the big-plant and pool pages (sometimes with prefix EVA-q), as well as the later cosmo pages and starred-text pages. It does not appear on the small-plant pages. In other words, it exhibits patterns markedly different from otcheody.
  
• otcheodar is only on the "star map" folio.
  
• otchody is on several of the big-plant pages and a starred-text page. It sometimes includes ch or q prefix.
  
• tochedy is a rare word, but can be found a couple of places with an o prefix.
  
• oteeody is on some of the big- and small-plant pages, several of the cosmo & zodiac pages. It sometimes has q prefix.
  

Thus, the proposed variations of the same star name exhibit a variety of patterns in terms of frequency and where in the manuscript they can be found.


It seems to me, from a theoretical point of view, that one needs to account for these patterns in a holistic way. If the proposed variations behave differently when each token is followed through the manuscript from beginning to end, can one make the assertion that they are the same word with the glyphs rearranged based on looking only at the star charts?

Or could one argue that each section has its own rules (I haven't seen too much evidence of this, other than Currier A and B), but I'll put the question out there anyway since it is a possible argument that might be given to account for Wayman's assertions about the star name.