Discussion of Yulia May's proposed solution

[-JKP-]

A count of how many times a shape occurs is not enough. Where it is in a sentence is important. In fact, in the VMS, this is one of the most important considerations (one of the most distinctive properties of the text).

For example,

• In Latin, the -ris/-tis/-cis abbreviations (EVA-m, EVA-g) typically are at the ends of words (as in the VMS) but can occur almost anywhere in a sentence. They are usually somewhat spaced out in the sentence in normal Latin but, in the VMS, to take folio 80r, as an example (because it has a lot of text), there are eight that are at the ends of lines, none that are midline. There are some on other pages that are midline, but they still don't fit the same linguistic pattern as Latin, even if it's assumed that this might be poetry (with rhyme at the end).
  
• In Latin, as you've already noticed, the pre- abbreviation is very common, the pro- abbreviation not quite as frequent. In your Latin interpretation, there is a very high percentage of 4o and very few 4—a ratio that  is completely different from Latin.
  

I can list many more examples, but this is why I keep saying the structure of the VMS differs quite significantly from Latin, even if some of the glyph-shapes and their position are obviously derived from Latin.


Given the inconsistency of the interpretation for specific glyphs/glyph combinations, I'm still concerned you may be imposing Latin upon the text rather than letting the text reveal itself.

When the same glyph means -um one time and -us the next time and -em a third time, we need to ask whether you are simply choosing something that works rather than letting the actual meaning of the text lead you to a solution.




I'd rather ask these questions here, on the forum, where you have a friendly audience than see you throw your translation out in the wild before it's ready, or you might get skewered by some of the less friendly detractors.