08-04-2019, 06:57 PM
(08-04-2019, 06:23 PM)Emma May Smith wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco, one of the most amazing things about that diagram is the inability to cope with [i]. I'm sure it's not a failing of the principle, but it's really stark how [i] occurs all over the place.
It's also great to see yet another way of testing the script which shows the same set [e, a, o, y] split at the base from other glyphs.
Hi Emma,
the way in which e,a,o,y differ from the other glyphs appears to be the clearest "phonological" fact. I agree that it is reassuring that several different methods arrive at the same result in this case.
Part of the problem with 'i' was an error in my EVA mapping: CUVA G corresponds to EVA:g (not EVA:il, I got confused with Currier's transcription which appears in the same table as CUVA on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). I apologize. I have now updated the graph.
It is still bizarre to see 'q' clustered with 'in', but at least all 'i's are still together at level 3.


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