10-03-2016, 07:27 PM
If we assume that the Voynich text is linguistic in nature, what alternatives are there to concluding that the script is an alphabet?
It is often considered that you can split most scripts up by the way they work into one of three groups:
1. alphabets where characters represent individual sounds;
2. syllabaries where character represent whole syllables; and
3. logographic systems where characters represent whole words.
The size of the character set is often taken to be diagnostic: alphabets have from 20 to 50 characters; syllabaries have from 50 to 100 characters; have logographic systems have many hundreds or thousands of characters. The number of characters thus reflects the number of underlying items which the characters represent: language have more words than they have syllables, and more syllables than they have sounds. Knowing that the Voynich script has 20-25 characters, we can rule out the language having only 25 words or 25 syllables, whereas 25 sounds is realistic.
Of course, not all characters must represent sounds. Some may be punctuation or ideographic. Also, some characters may represent more than one sound depending on the context. But the basic principle of any given instance of a character standing for a single sound should be mostly good. The question whether the script fully represents all kinds of sounds (that is, an abjad without vowels) would be unanswered, but abjads are still a kind of alphabet.
We might also have the count of characters wrong, however, with there being more or fewer distinction than we currently make. But there is no way a decrease in the number of characters would make an alphabet less likely, and any increase would have to be substantial before we could being to consider syllabaries.
What alternatives are there, if we believe the characters are a script to represent language, other than the script being alphabetic in nature? I'm genuinely looking for evidence to shake an assumption I've had for a long time.
(Note: I understand that the linguistic nature of the text is an assumption, but that's not the topic of this thread.)
It is often considered that you can split most scripts up by the way they work into one of three groups:
1. alphabets where characters represent individual sounds;
2. syllabaries where character represent whole syllables; and
3. logographic systems where characters represent whole words.
The size of the character set is often taken to be diagnostic: alphabets have from 20 to 50 characters; syllabaries have from 50 to 100 characters; have logographic systems have many hundreds or thousands of characters. The number of characters thus reflects the number of underlying items which the characters represent: language have more words than they have syllables, and more syllables than they have sounds. Knowing that the Voynich script has 20-25 characters, we can rule out the language having only 25 words or 25 syllables, whereas 25 sounds is realistic.
Of course, not all characters must represent sounds. Some may be punctuation or ideographic. Also, some characters may represent more than one sound depending on the context. But the basic principle of any given instance of a character standing for a single sound should be mostly good. The question whether the script fully represents all kinds of sounds (that is, an abjad without vowels) would be unanswered, but abjads are still a kind of alphabet.
We might also have the count of characters wrong, however, with there being more or fewer distinction than we currently make. But there is no way a decrease in the number of characters would make an alphabet less likely, and any increase would have to be substantial before we could being to consider syllabaries.
What alternatives are there, if we believe the characters are a script to represent language, other than the script being alphabetic in nature? I'm genuinely looking for evidence to shake an assumption I've had for a long time.
(Note: I understand that the linguistic nature of the text is an assumption, but that's not the topic of this thread.)