The Origin of [sh]

[-JKP-]

...

I guess we all agree that the lower part of Sh is the same as ch? And that the only difference is the 'plume', 'hat', topstroke, whatever you want to call it?

It seems that way to me (that the only difference is the cap). In Latin this shape is a curved macron (very common), but I usually say "cap" so as not to presume it is actually a macron (maybe it is, maybe it isn't).

I think that when writing Sh the scribe wrote ch first and added the topstroke last. Would others agree?

Yes, I think so.

If so, how long after the ch was the topstroke written? Can we show that it was written immediately after or that (at least in some cases) other glyphs were written between the ch and the addition of the topstroke? Would the lightness/darkness of the topstroke provide evidence?

Good question. Yes, the lightness/darkness of the stroke might provide evidence.

Although I'm very uncertain about this hypothesis, I think it could serve to make an important point: whether ch and Sh are different glyphs, or the same glyph with different environments. The topstroke could be indicating that a later glyph/sound/part was omitted or altered.

In Latin, the bench shape is quite common. Since the letters c, e, t, and some forms of r were written quite similarly, they were often combined as a ligature that comes out looking like a bench. Even 'ci" writtten as a ligature looks like a bench if it is a scribe who writes letters like "t" and "i" with a curved stem and who adds a serif to the leg of the "i".


So, in languages that use Latin conventions, the bench may be read as "cr", for example, but if you add the cap (in Latin, a macron), then it is usually read as "cer". Similarly if the bench represents "ct" (such as in the word "act") then adding a macron changes it to "cet" or "cert" or whatever fits the situation.

Now, in Voynichese, it could be anything! sh could be a ligature, an abbreviation, a single glyph, a number, or a symbol. I don't know what it is, but there are differences between ch and sh in frequency and, to some extent, in behavior.


Also, the cap itself has several forms. I've been struggling for a significant time to try to figure out if the difference in the forms is meaningful. In Latin they would be. For example, sometimes the "cap" is very deliberately connected to the top of the first cee-shape (similar to EVA-s) and at other times, it is very deliberately connected to the FOOT of the curve. It does not look like a slip of the hand, it looks deliberate. Which means... PERHAPS sh is not one glyph (or one ligature or abbreviation), it might be two or three or four different glyphs.


However! I DON'T get the impression the shape of the cap matters, only the way it is connected. The shape is all over the place, but the way it is connected (at least in some parts of the manuscript) is what seems deliberate.



Sorry, that's a lot of information but... I've spent a lot of time looking at individual glyphs in the VMS (and doing the exhausting work of creating transcripts) and those are things I've noticed that MIGHT be relevant to the interpretation of ch/sh.

It's a devil of a manuscript. Both in the text and the drawings it provides JUST enough information to suggest, "There's something here," but not quite enough to show what it is.