As Marco pointed out in this thread, my vord paradigm based on QOKEEDY bares contrast to Emma May Smith’s preferred example vord QOKEDAR.
The difference is the final consonant. As Marco writes:
If one matches [qokedar] to qokeedy, it becomes clear that a slot for the "coda" is missing: one must allow that the vowel of the last syllable is followed by consonants.
In my quest for simplicity I removed the provision for the final consonant. It was in my initial model but I attempted to eliminate it.
It is, however, a necessary complication (if QOKEEDY is our paradigm.) The paradigm, in fact, is QOKEEDY, with or without a Final, or a “coda” to the last syllable.
(I will just call this slot in the model ‘Final’ and the glyphs that tend to appear there ‘Finals’, alluding to scripts like Hebrew or Arabic where letters can take final forms. There is ample evidence that in Voynichese some of the ‘Finals’ are vord-final forms of other glyphs that are transformed when they appear at occur at the end of vords, i.e. before a space.)
To clarify things, a better iteration of the paradigm looks like this:
The difference is the final consonant. As Marco writes:
If one matches [qokedar] to qokeedy, it becomes clear that a slot for the "coda" is missing: one must allow that the vowel of the last syllable is followed by consonants.
In my quest for simplicity I removed the provision for the final consonant. It was in my initial model but I attempted to eliminate it.
It is, however, a necessary complication (if QOKEEDY is our paradigm.) The paradigm, in fact, is QOKEEDY, with or without a Final, or a “coda” to the last syllable.
(I will just call this slot in the model ‘Final’ and the glyphs that tend to appear there ‘Finals’, alluding to scripts like Hebrew or Arabic where letters can take final forms. There is ample evidence that in Voynichese some of the ‘Finals’ are vord-final forms of other glyphs that are transformed when they appear at occur at the end of vords, i.e. before a space.)
To clarify things, a better iteration of the paradigm looks like this:
QOKEEDY remains the default vord, but it has two forms, one ending [y] and one ending vowel/final. Arguably QOKEDAR makes QOKEEDY redundant, but there are other reasons for having QOKEEDY as the default.
I have also taken Marco’ sage advice and admit vords without a core (or subject.) The distinction between vords with and without a core then becomes a matter of interest.
Every graphic presentation gives emphasis to different aspects of the default vord structure. I choose to give emphasis to the tripartite structure (compartments A, B and C) and to the core glyph (almost invariably a gallow or at least consonant, shown in red.) I also want to emphasize the conspicuous alternation of consonants and vowels: CVCVCV etc.
All the same, this correction only fixes one end of the paradigm – it allows a final consonant. It does not fix the other shortcoming of QOKEEDY, namely that a good portion of vords begin with a VC prefix (eg. [ol-]. But QOKEDAR fails at that hurdle too.
Assuredly, there are rules (or rather probabilities) that govern what glyphs can appear in what slots but the model becomes unweildly if we try to account for them all. Even with the best of rules there are exceptions. Few are iron fast. Rather, it suffices to make the general rule that any consonant glyph can appear in any consonant slot, and vowels in vowel slots, but some are much more likely than others on a scale from ‘almost always’ to ‘not once in this sample.’
The other rule for using this tool is simply: in every case match vords to the paradigm as nearly (and as consistently) as possible.
Although this is a vord paradigm, I am actually interested in LINES and apply the model to reveal line patterns. (I am specifically intrigued by how some lines seem to rehearse various permutations of one aspect or other of the paradigm, very often what I am calling the Finals. There is a lot of play with these Finals.)
I have also taken Marco’ sage advice and admit vords without a core (or subject.) The distinction between vords with and without a core then becomes a matter of interest.
* * *
Every graphic presentation gives emphasis to different aspects of the default vord structure. I choose to give emphasis to the tripartite structure (compartments A, B and C) and to the core glyph (almost invariably a gallow or at least consonant, shown in red.) I also want to emphasize the conspicuous alternation of consonants and vowels: CVCVCV etc.
All the same, this correction only fixes one end of the paradigm – it allows a final consonant. It does not fix the other shortcoming of QOKEEDY, namely that a good portion of vords begin with a VC prefix (eg. [ol-]. But QOKEDAR fails at that hurdle too.
Assuredly, there are rules (or rather probabilities) that govern what glyphs can appear in what slots but the model becomes unweildly if we try to account for them all. Even with the best of rules there are exceptions. Few are iron fast. Rather, it suffices to make the general rule that any consonant glyph can appear in any consonant slot, and vowels in vowel slots, but some are much more likely than others on a scale from ‘almost always’ to ‘not once in this sample.’
The other rule for using this tool is simply: in every case match vords to the paradigm as nearly (and as consistently) as possible.
Although this is a vord paradigm, I am actually interested in LINES and apply the model to reveal line patterns. (I am specifically intrigued by how some lines seem to rehearse various permutations of one aspect or other of the paradigm, very often what I am calling the Finals. There is a lot of play with these Finals.)
As a philosophical aside, I think the background to the manuscript is broadly Platonic (rather than Aristotelean) and it is an appropriately Platonic move to apply a paradigm in order to observe samenesses and differences. (I suspect what appear as the core of vords are, Platonically speaking, paradigmata.) Paradigm is the right term.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)