02-01-2016, 02:42 PM
Yes, and certainly the embellishment is (and has been indeed, in the Voynich discussions) the natural assumption in the first place.
For a somewhat more comprehensive check of the "coverage" hypothesis, one may do the following (limiting this to plain p and f, for simplicity):
Prior to doing any tests though, we have to agree about the extent of the coverage itself - should it be marked at the extent of the main loop, or at the extent of the top right ear of the gallows?! The case with t suggests the first way. By the way, those t's with their legs in different places look to me a strong point towards the coverage system. Because obviously this behaviour cannot be attributed to embellishment.
For a somewhat more comprehensive check of the "coverage" hypothesis, one may do the following (limiting this to plain p and f, for simplicity):
- Locate all words containing plain p and f
- For each word, write down the order of the coverage (e.g. if the loop is covering one character, the order is 1, if it is covering two characters, the order is 2, and so on; if the gallows does not cover anything, the order is 0)
- Check if the non-zero order of coverage is preserved for occurrences of a given word as identified in point 1 above. If it is, at least in some of the occurrences, then we observe a system. If it is not, then possibly these are flourishes, indeed.
Prior to doing any tests though, we have to agree about the extent of the coverage itself - should it be marked at the extent of the main loop, or at the extent of the top right ear of the gallows?! The case with t suggests the first way. By the way, those t's with their legs in different places look to me a strong point towards the coverage system. Because obviously this behaviour cannot be attributed to embellishment.