If it were a simple sound-mnemonic, one might expect something like orient (east), and maybe oxident (as in the Greek x (chi), which is usually transliterated as ch) for occident for west, which is just an example, and doesn't quite work if ol is being used for north.
There are many alternatives to sound mnemonics, however. If it goes round in a circle assigning different values, for example, then the assignments would be different.
Another possibility is that they are reference labels (e.g., to a companion text or to other sections of the VMS text).
I have numerous charts that illustrate how these syllables behave in the manuscript (which includes info on biglyphs). I've been chasing them down for years, trying to figure out exactly how they work (not just in the labels, but in the text, as well). I promised Geoffrey I would try to post it this weekend (I have to move the charts from the Appendix into the body so it's easier to relate them to the text, and I can't do it until the weekend, probably not before Sunday). I think it might help prevent a lot of re-inventing of the wheel. It's more than 40 pages.
One of the things I've tried to watch out for is whether the same "chunks" mean something different in different parts of the manuscript and it may be true in some instances. I'm not completely sure of this, but I've been investigating it. Years ago I created a "concordance" of every token in the VMS and their relationships to the same token in other sections (it took more than 1100 pages to describe this). What came out of it was not what one would expect if it were natural language. From that point on, I've been trying to look at it from other perspectives.
There are many alternatives to sound mnemonics, however. If it goes round in a circle assigning different values, for example, then the assignments would be different.
Another possibility is that they are reference labels (e.g., to a companion text or to other sections of the VMS text).
I have numerous charts that illustrate how these syllables behave in the manuscript (which includes info on biglyphs). I've been chasing them down for years, trying to figure out exactly how they work (not just in the labels, but in the text, as well). I promised Geoffrey I would try to post it this weekend (I have to move the charts from the Appendix into the body so it's easier to relate them to the text, and I can't do it until the weekend, probably not before Sunday). I think it might help prevent a lot of re-inventing of the wheel. It's more than 40 pages.
One of the things I've tried to watch out for is whether the same "chunks" mean something different in different parts of the manuscript and it may be true in some instances. I'm not completely sure of this, but I've been investigating it. Years ago I created a "concordance" of every token in the VMS and their relationships to the same token in other sections (it took more than 1100 pages to describe this). What came out of it was not what one would expect if it were natural language. From that point on, I've been trying to look at it from other perspectives.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)