Further adventures with Voynich Vord Paradigms, once again applied to vords in the context of LINES.
There are many possible decompositions of a LINE of Voynich text, each privileging one or other feature. My methods are, perforce, non-statistical: paradigms and patterns. I am trying to find useful methods for analysing lines and better understanding Voynichese in context.
This current method I call ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS. It supposes that longer vords are composed of shorter vords, that vords are assembled from basic elements within the line as a container.
To illustrate this I divide the vords of a line into four groups:
1. Those with gallows.
2. Benched, but without gallows. ([ch] and [sh] vords) + [q]
3. The [daiin] group
4. Particles and sundries. (neither benches nor gallows).
Vords with gallows are marked with bold.
Benched vords without gallows - [ch] and [sh] vords – are marked in italics.
The [daiin] group are marked green.
The particles and sundries are left unmarked.
The categories go in that order. If a vord might be in two groups, it is marked in the higher.
There is an implied hierarchy or assembly order, with the order culminating in vords with gallows.
The order reveals the phenomenon of promotion or ELEVATION. A vord is promoted or ELEVATED if it has a benched glyph (or q-) added to it, and it is further promoted or elevated if it then has a gallows glyph added to it.
Thus: aiin might be elevated or promoted to become chaiin, which may be promoted to become kaiin.
There is an implied order, simplicity to complexity, shorter to longer (as well as shorter to taller according to a vertical decomposition of the script.)
As a focus of analysis I have also marked the vord in each line that is nearest to either of two default vords: CHOLDAIIN or QOKEEDY. A vord near to QOKEEDY is marked in red and a vord near to CHOLDAIIN is marked in blue.
The proposal is that vords in a line, in their assembly from smaller units, mutate towards one of the paradigm vords. This is a method for showing this process.
The paradigm vords were identified by Patrick Feaster as the default vords of Currier A and B respectively, so the comparison made in this method bares upon the operations of the two ‘languages” dicernible in the Voynich text as they manifest at the level of LINES.
We disassemble lines into these four groups, their assembly order:
<f101r1.P.6;H>
okeeol.sho.shody.sho.shol.okeeeol.cheos.sheokeey.sheeor.chchy.chodaiin.sheeckhey.teeol.scheol.sar.oeeor=
sar.
oeeor
sho.
sho
shol
shody
cheos
chchy
scheol
sheeor
chodaiin
teeol
okeeol.
okeeeol.
sheokeey.
sheeckhey.
Here it seems the benched group moves towards CHOLDAIIN but the gallowed group move towards QOKEEDY.
We can see motifs being developed. The motif of a string of vowels is already present in the ‘Particles’ group: oeeor. This is elevated to [sheeor] and then to the three [-eeol] forms in the gallows, with [r] and [l] glyphs interchangable or mutating.
As we see in a Vord Paradigm we quickly observe that glyphs mutate. Some mutations are more common than others, but the general rule is consonants-for-consonants and vowels-for-vowels.
Another instance:
<f34v.P.7;H>
olchdaiin.chedy.chey.keedy.chy.kedy.dy.qokedy.okey.sair.chkain.otain-
dy
sair
chy
chey
chedy
olchdaiin
kedy
okey
otain
keedy
chkain
qokedy
Again, the benched vords culminate in a vord near to the CHOLDAIIN paradigm and the gallows in a vord near to QOKEEDY.
We can see development within groups - [chy] becomes [chey] becomes [chedy] – but also elevation or promotion – [chedy] becomes [kedy].
Note well that in [olchdaiin] the deviation from the paradigm is the reversal of elements in [chol] – it becomes [ol + ch], i.e. backwards. We find this again in other lines.
<f100r.P2.7;H>
saiichor.sheor.qockhody.odeor.yksheey.chol.sheody.sai.cheol.raiin-
sai.
odeor.
raiin
chol.
cheol.
sheor.
sheody.
saiichor.
yksheey
qockhody
In many cases we see how longer vords are assembled from smaller units – hence the ‘assembly order’.
Note how the particle [sai] is a constituent part of [saiichor.]
In fact, [saiichor] might be seen as being assembled entirely from smaller elements. The double [ii], for instance, might be taken from [raiin].
Note, though – importantly - [saiichor] resembles the default vord backwards: choldaiin = chor - saii. = saiichor
Again, we see the gallowed vords being developed towards QOKEEDY and the benched-no-gallows vords developing towards CHOLDAIIN.
Again we find a case of the reversal or inversion of component parts.
A case where CHOLDAIIN dominates:
<f32v.P.10;H>
sho.keol.chor.chol.daiin.cphol.cthol.da.ar
da
ar
daiin
sho
cho
chol
keol
cthol
cphol
This line is entirely concerned with CHOLDAIIN - the gallowed vords play with elevations of “chol”.
Typically, different forms and combinations are rehearsed: [sho] and [cho].
Notice here how the benched gallows are a combination of the two paradigms: the gallows intrude into the [ch] of [chol]. Elevation can happen by the [ch] being replaced with [k] or the [k] (or other gallow) being added to [ch] to become [ckh].
And another:
<f111v.P.13;H>
sheaiin.okaiin.chckhy.cheol.kedy.chetar.okaiin.shal.lchdal.tedy.tar.amd-
amd
shal
cheol
lchdal
sheaiin
tar
tedy
kedy
okaiin
okaiin
chetar
chckhy
This is another CHOLDAIIN dominant line but where that paradigm extends into the gallowed vords. [kedy] is the nearest to QOKEEDY.
The intriguing thing is that many vords and patterns are best explained as a meeting of the two paradigms. Thus: [okaiin] might be [ok] + [aiin] or [q-ok] + [d – aiin].
Note inversions and reversals. There can be no doubt that [lchdal] is based upon the CHOLDAIIN paradigm but note how [chol] becomes [lch].
<f99r.P3.10;H>
sol.sheol.keshey.qokeeey.chs.chey.dolchey.ctheey.daiin.cheom-
sol.
daiin
chs.
chey.
sheol.
cheom.
dolchey.
ctheey.
keshey.
qokeeey.
Another case where the most complex of the benched-but-no-gallows vords shows inversion. CHOLDAIIN becomes [dolchey] with the [ch] and the [d] of the paradigm being swapped.
This is enough to demonstrate the method. It continues from other methods I've outlined already.
It is my observation that there are not two languages or even ‘dialects’, but one cloth woven of two threads. In some lines of text one thread dominates, and in others the other thread dominates. But they interweave and overlap. A simple binary – A and B – does not adequately describe what we see. Indeed, the interweaving of the two threads seems to drive the mutations of the vords; it is the dynamic of the text.
The two threads meet in an obvious way in the benched gallows.
There are many possible decompositions of a LINE of Voynich text, each privileging one or other feature. My methods are, perforce, non-statistical: paradigms and patterns. I am trying to find useful methods for analysing lines and better understanding Voynichese in context.
This current method I call ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS. It supposes that longer vords are composed of shorter vords, that vords are assembled from basic elements within the line as a container.
To illustrate this I divide the vords of a line into four groups:
1. Those with gallows.
2. Benched, but without gallows. ([ch] and [sh] vords) + [q]
3. The [daiin] group
4. Particles and sundries. (neither benches nor gallows).
Vords with gallows are marked with bold.
Benched vords without gallows - [ch] and [sh] vords – are marked in italics.
The [daiin] group are marked green.
The particles and sundries are left unmarked.
The categories go in that order. If a vord might be in two groups, it is marked in the higher.
There is an implied hierarchy or assembly order, with the order culminating in vords with gallows.
The order reveals the phenomenon of promotion or ELEVATION. A vord is promoted or ELEVATED if it has a benched glyph (or q-) added to it, and it is further promoted or elevated if it then has a gallows glyph added to it.
Thus: aiin might be elevated or promoted to become chaiin, which may be promoted to become kaiin.
There is an implied order, simplicity to complexity, shorter to longer (as well as shorter to taller according to a vertical decomposition of the script.)
* * *
As a focus of analysis I have also marked the vord in each line that is nearest to either of two default vords: CHOLDAIIN or QOKEEDY. A vord near to QOKEEDY is marked in red and a vord near to CHOLDAIIN is marked in blue.
The proposal is that vords in a line, in their assembly from smaller units, mutate towards one of the paradigm vords. This is a method for showing this process.
The paradigm vords were identified by Patrick Feaster as the default vords of Currier A and B respectively, so the comparison made in this method bares upon the operations of the two ‘languages” dicernible in the Voynich text as they manifest at the level of LINES.
* * *
We disassemble lines into these four groups, their assembly order:
<f101r1.P.6;H>
okeeol.sho.shody.sho.shol.okeeeol.cheos.sheokeey.sheeor.chchy.chodaiin.sheeckhey.teeol.scheol.sar.oeeor=
sar.
oeeor
sho.
sho
shol
shody
cheos
chchy
scheol
sheeor
chodaiin
teeol
okeeol.
okeeeol.
sheokeey.
sheeckhey.
Here it seems the benched group moves towards CHOLDAIIN but the gallowed group move towards QOKEEDY.
We can see motifs being developed. The motif of a string of vowels is already present in the ‘Particles’ group: oeeor. This is elevated to [sheeor] and then to the three [-eeol] forms in the gallows, with [r] and [l] glyphs interchangable or mutating.
As we see in a Vord Paradigm we quickly observe that glyphs mutate. Some mutations are more common than others, but the general rule is consonants-for-consonants and vowels-for-vowels.
* * *
Another instance:
<f34v.P.7;H>
olchdaiin.chedy.chey.keedy.chy.kedy.dy.qokedy.okey.sair.chkain.otain-
dy
sair
chy
chey
chedy
olchdaiin
kedy
okey
otain
keedy
chkain
qokedy
Again, the benched vords culminate in a vord near to the CHOLDAIIN paradigm and the gallows in a vord near to QOKEEDY.
We can see development within groups - [chy] becomes [chey] becomes [chedy] – but also elevation or promotion – [chedy] becomes [kedy].
Note well that in [olchdaiin] the deviation from the paradigm is the reversal of elements in [chol] – it becomes [ol + ch], i.e. backwards. We find this again in other lines.
* * *
<f100r.P2.7;H>
saiichor.sheor.qockhody.odeor.yksheey.chol.sheody.sai.cheol.raiin-
sai.
odeor.
raiin
chol.
cheol.
sheor.
sheody.
saiichor.
yksheey
qockhody
In many cases we see how longer vords are assembled from smaller units – hence the ‘assembly order’.
Note how the particle [sai] is a constituent part of [saiichor.]
In fact, [saiichor] might be seen as being assembled entirely from smaller elements. The double [ii], for instance, might be taken from [raiin].
Note, though – importantly - [saiichor] resembles the default vord backwards: choldaiin = chor - saii. = saiichor
Again, we see the gallowed vords being developed towards QOKEEDY and the benched-no-gallows vords developing towards CHOLDAIIN.
Again we find a case of the reversal or inversion of component parts.
* * *
A case where CHOLDAIIN dominates:
<f32v.P.10;H>
sho.keol.chor.chol.daiin.cphol.cthol.da.ar
da
ar
daiin
sho
cho
chol
keol
cthol
cphol
This line is entirely concerned with CHOLDAIIN - the gallowed vords play with elevations of “chol”.
Typically, different forms and combinations are rehearsed: [sho] and [cho].
Notice here how the benched gallows are a combination of the two paradigms: the gallows intrude into the [ch] of [chol]. Elevation can happen by the [ch] being replaced with [k] or the [k] (or other gallow) being added to [ch] to become [ckh].
* * *
And another:
<f111v.P.13;H>
sheaiin.okaiin.chckhy.cheol.kedy.chetar.okaiin.shal.lchdal.tedy.tar.amd-
amd
shal
cheol
lchdal
sheaiin
tar
tedy
kedy
okaiin
okaiin
chetar
chckhy
This is another CHOLDAIIN dominant line but where that paradigm extends into the gallowed vords. [kedy] is the nearest to QOKEEDY.
The intriguing thing is that many vords and patterns are best explained as a meeting of the two paradigms. Thus: [okaiin] might be [ok] + [aiin] or [q-ok] + [d – aiin].
Note inversions and reversals. There can be no doubt that [lchdal] is based upon the CHOLDAIIN paradigm but note how [chol] becomes [lch].
* * *
<f99r.P3.10;H>
sol.sheol.keshey.qokeeey.chs.chey.dolchey.ctheey.daiin.cheom-
sol.
daiin
chs.
chey.
sheol.
cheom.
dolchey.
ctheey.
keshey.
qokeeey.
Another case where the most complex of the benched-but-no-gallows vords shows inversion. CHOLDAIIN becomes [dolchey] with the [ch] and the [d] of the paradigm being swapped.
* * *
This is enough to demonstrate the method. It continues from other methods I've outlined already.
It is my observation that there are not two languages or even ‘dialects’, but one cloth woven of two threads. In some lines of text one thread dominates, and in others the other thread dominates. But they interweave and overlap. A simple binary – A and B – does not adequately describe what we see. Indeed, the interweaving of the two threads seems to drive the mutations of the vords; it is the dynamic of the text.
The two threads meet in an obvious way in the benched gallows.