23-03-2019, 07:41 PM
(23-03-2019, 04:01 PM)geoffreycaveney wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Linda, I will answer your question in a separate thread
No problem. I apologize for my part in taking things off track. But i do feel all the ideas were related to Anton's initial post, we are all just stretching to provide new ideas regarding translation of the text, sometimes the only way to show that idea is to provide a sample.
Quote:Another strange thing is the high degree of morphological similarity between vords being members of homogenous sets - such as my favourite "Voynich stars" (f68r1, r2). Of 53 Voynich star labels in total, 39 (or 74%) start with "o". Of those 39, 15 (or 28% of the total) start with "ot", and 9 (or 17% of the total) start with "ok". Those two subsets constitute 45% of all Voynich stars. In other words, notions homogenous in nature are designated by vords similar in morphology. This does not very much look like what we find in natural languages. This could be explained, however, by vords encoding positions in a nomenclator. Homogenous notions may have been grouped in a nomenclator. Encodings of their positions (close to each other) would then appear morphologically similar.
I was attempting to present the idea that the ok's and ot's could be even more literally positional, indicating windrose positions, along with various other glyphs standing in for the others. It seems to happen mostly with words starting with o or 8o. Possibly qo as well, although i dont have an explanation for that in mind as yet.
Perhaps there are layers here as well, some interpretations meld with others, like glyphs standing for both something fundamental (directions?), and as nomenclator indicators, for instance, which when preceded by o or its variants would likely point to related concepts as mentioned, maybe even multiple choices, guided by context. At the same time, these could be used as letters or abbreviations in the rest of the text, or have their context guided by other glyph prefixes, or the lack of them.
This would certainly befuddle any analysis of a particular glyph's usage. It is analogous to the imagery morphing into related concepts that as a whole give a better explanation than any of the parts do individually.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)