Vord paradigm tool

[pfeaster]

Here I present a study of some of the patterns of LINES by employing a simple method of parsing.

I appreciate the organizational categories you're proposing: the cluster, the alternation, the intrusion, bracketing, symmetry, and such.  It's frustratingly difficult to take certain kinds of pattern I think many of us intuitively sense unfolding within lines (whether they're really "there" or just eye-catching coincidences) and reduce them to models that can be talked about and tested and potentially verified as statistically significant.  But it seems well worth trying, and I'm glad you're doing it.

The method is:
Vords in the line are examined, in sequence, according to whether their initial glyph is a consonant or a vowel.
We mark a separator (break) where the sequence changes so as to group common initial-glyph vords together.

I notice you like to refer to Voynichese "vords," which I assume you mean as an acknowledgment that glyph sequences separated by spaces might not function as or correspond to "words," even if they look superficially like them.  But is it worth being equally circumspect about "consonants" and "vowels"?  Or should I say "qonsonants" and "voyels" (or maybe "owels," which more appropriately starts with the class of glyphs it would refer to)?

Maybe your [q-o_k-ee_d-y] vord paradigm really does reflect a literal CVCVCV structure.  But it seems to me that the value of the vord paradigm as a tool doesn't hinge on the correctness of that hypothesis.  As far as the vord paradigm itself goes, it doesn't really matter whether the prefix [q-o], stem [k-ee], and suffix [d-y] each represent separate syllables, or a single syllable CVC collectively, or a number hundreds-tens-units, or whatever else.  Its main analytical claim would seem to be that the [q-o], [k-ee], and [d-y] elements each have an internal structure in which [o], [a], [e], and [y] occupy a somewhat consistent position at or near the end.

With your extension of the vord paradigm to a line paradigm, though, you lock into an interpretation that considers the [q], [k], and [d] parts to be interchangeable Cs, and the [o], [ee], and [y] parts to be interchangeable Vs.  Maybe that will turn out to be correct -- who knows?  But I wonder whether there would be a way to keep your line paradigm as flexible with regard to interpretation as your vord paradigm is.

Do your line-structure observations require drawing no distinction at all among the glyphs you identify as "vowels" and "consonants," or would many of them stand even with narrower groupings of related glyphs -- or maybe with glyphs that occupy specific columns in your paradigm tool?

oteeoaly.otar.alkar.or.aldar=
This is not a cluster of [o-] vords, it is, more exactly, a cluster of vowel-initial vords.

It could also be interpreted as a cluster of vords beginning with the two specific glyphs [o] and [a], which seem to share certain other similarities.  The first three vords also begin not just with "vowels," but specifically with selections from your V1 column (the last two seem as though your tool could parse them in more than one way).

yees.ykchol.oty.ytor.ytar.ytchor.ytaiin=
We might call these lines, FULL CLUSTERS, the whole line being a collection (cluster) of either consonant-initial or vowel-initial vords. 

But alternatively, if we were to draw a distinction between [y] and [o], this would instead look suspiciously like what you call an intrusion, akin to:

shol.chol.shoky.
okol.
sho.chol.chol.chal-

Similarly, [otar.alkar.or.aldar] in the earlier example could be interpreted as alternation rather than clustering if we choose to distinguish [o] from [a].

This leads me to wonder how one might test/confirm/falsify hypotheses such as:

(1) [y*] and [o*] fall into the same category and can form a cluster together
(2) [y*] and [o*] fall into different categories and can form intrusions or alternations relative to one another
(3) [sh*]/[ch*] and [o*] fall into the same category and can form a cluster together
(4) [sh*]/[ch*] and [o*] fall into different categories and can form intrusions or alternations relative to one another

If we don't assume a priori what the glyph categories are, would there be any way to infer them reliably from the line patterns?  Or are line patterns only detectable and differentiable on the basis of categories already inferred through vord-level analysis?

You tentatively frame these patterns as line patterns tied to LAAFU.  But it would be interesting to explore whether clusters seem in practice to respect line boundaries or not.  I'm thinking of "incontestable" clusters (i.e., ones that don't require any assumptions about glyph categories) such as:

(f37v): daiin.dy / dshor.dytory.dshor.daiin /dchor

(f111r): qokeedy.qokedy.qoteedy.qod / qocKhedy.qokeechy.qotchey

Another thought: would similar patterns (clusters, brackets, alternation, etc.) emerge if you grouped words by their ending glyphs rather than their beginning glyphs?  I believe nearly all vords end in what you would treat as "consonants" in column CF, which may have nudged you away from this approach.  But insofar as you take an interest in the contrastive vord-break combinations [n.o] and [y.q], it might be useful to distinguish [n] from [y], at least -- and if we do, they sometimes seem independently to display what looks like impressive "clustering" behavior:

(f76v): 
salkchdy.chey.lcheedy.lchedy.qoteedy / 
sol,shey.qotedy.chey.dytey.teedy.lchey.qokedy.chedy.lal,chedy.lchedy /
dchedy.qokeedy.qotchy

(f25r): 
chan.chaiin.qotchain / 
qotcheaiin.dchain.cthain.daiin.daiin.cthain.qotaiin

Unless I'm mistaken, these same sequences would also count as clusters based on your classification of their initial glyphs as "consonants."

Anyhow, this is all nicely thought-provoking, and I hope I can look forward to reading about the implications you see in this "extension" of your vord paradigm into a line paradigm.