Syllabification

[Helmut Winkler]

Helmut, I confess I lose your logic a bit, maybe that's misunderstanding due to language barrier (English is not my native and I guess yours neither), but nonetheless.

Let's continue the example with 89 (or de, or ds). I say it stands for "deus". In that case it represents a word. You confirm that it may stand for "deus" (hence, it would represent a word, as supposed). But you continue that 89 may well not stand for "deus", but also may stand for something else, depending on the context. That's fine, but that does not deprive the thing that 89 stands for of its property of being a word. It does not become a sentence or a syllable. We only have a one-to-many mapping instead of one-to-one mapping.

It can stand for a concept. It doesn't have to stand for a word.

Helmut has posted not only a possible breakdown of these "components" but has given examples of what they might represent.

Thank you

---

You can't use a qualified statement to dispute a statement of fact and then follow it up with a contradictory statement of fact.  It doesn't make your fact correct.  Anton's statement is not necessarily true but "A Voynich word is not a word in a linguistic sense, whatever it may be" is not necessarily true either. 

Rather than just make the statement  could you explain why you are certain that a VMS word is not a linguistic word?  An abbreviated word is still a word in a linguistic sense - if I call someone a tard it isn't polite or P.C., but it has semantic content and is an abbreviated form of another word (perhaps P.C. would have been a better example). 

You want to read VMS as abbreviated 15th century Latin.  When (or if) it is read, it will be read as whatever it is

You can't use a qualified statement ...

  I can do whatever I like and you can disapprove as long as you like

Rather than just make the statement  ...

 Voynich words are an artificial partititioning of the flow of the text. Its like  writing 'Gods  av et heQ  een'. I never found out who introduced the concept.

---

Helmut, I confess I lose your logic a bit, maybe that's misunderstanding due to language barrier (English is not my native and I guess yours neither), but nonetheless.

Let's continue the example with 89 (or de, or ds). I say it stands for "deus". In that case it represents a word. You confirm that it may stand for "deus" (hence, it would represent a word, as supposed). But you continue that 89 may well not stand for "deus", but also may stand for something else, depending on the context. That's fine, but that does not deprive the thing that 89 stands for of its property of being a word. It does not become a sentence or a syllable. We only have a one-to-many mapping instead of one-to-one mapping.

1) I think the fundamental difference between you and me is that you think the ms. is a ciphre and I don't

2) I don't think you understand how medieval abbreviations are working. That is why I said some time ago some people should read the Capelli introduction. 89 would never stand as abbr. for deus, only de or ds  (as a matter of fact I would say with a 89 you would have a nomenclator). When, as a scribe in the 15th c.  you were using   abbreviations, there were rules  how to make abbreviations, which were kept more or less. Which means  one  should try to read the text as it is standing and  by applying the medieval rules one  should be able to reconstruct the text of the ms. At least that is what scholars are doing every day on highly abbr. mss. of law or theology and I don't see why the VMs should be different.