This is an attempt to integrate two (or four!) different Vord Paradigms into a single model, a foolhardy attempt to forge a global template. It requires a dual paradigm. The two paradigms are:
CHOLDAIIN
QOKEEDY
Both, however, have variants:
DARCHOL
QOKEDAR
There are thus no less than four paradigmic vords. I have attempted to reconcile all four at common points in order to reveal a more comprehensive system.
The system has two main features that permit this:
1. It treats the vord paradigms as CYCLES.
2. It treats vord BREAKS as the critical points in the cycles.
The view of the text implicit in this is that there is a repeating base cycle (the CHOLDAIN or CH cycle) that is like the warp of a weave. A second cycle – a weft – ( the QOKEEDY or Q cycle) then intrudes and is intermixed with the base cycle.
(The variants DARCHOL and QOKEDAR actually arise out of the intermixing.)
This CYCLIC and INTERWOVEN nature of the text is the reason any single paradigm will be inadequate. The text is woven of two main threads.The bulk of vords are hybrids of the two.
The main distincton between the two threads is that the QOKEEDY (Q) cycle carries or contains gallows glyphs. The CHOLDAIIN cycle contains benched glyphs but no gallows. The gallows glyphs are the whole issue.
The intermingling of the two cycles comes about when the gallows glyphs are inserted into the repeating base cycle.
Concerning this, namely the way the two threads or streams of text converge, the invariable rule is:
Gallows glyphs are inserted into the SPACES of the CHOLDAIIN cycle.
Those are the points where the two threads are linked together. That is the rivet. That is where one cycle is anchored into the other. Other points of contact follow from that anchor.
Note that the base cycle has both soft and hard breaks. There is a soft break between CHOL and DAIIN. There is a hard break before CHOL and after DAIIN. The base sequence goes:
** CHOL*DAIIN ** CHOL*DAIIN ** CHOL etc.
Looking closer at this underlying churn, CHOL and DAIIN are versions of the same vord, and DAR is a variant of DAIIN.
Secondarily, or simultaneously, the same cycle goes:
** DAR*CHOL ** DAR*CHOL ** DAR*CHOL ** etc.
In the end, therefore, everything comes down to a threefold pattern of glyphs:
This is at the very foundation – the atomic level – of the non-gallows text. We cannot reduce it any further.
All the permutations of glyphs familiar to us from earlier vord paradigms are not shown in this current presentation.
[ch] can become [sh], for instance, and [n] can become a range of final glyphs.
In this core formation [ch] becomes [d], [o] becomes [a] and [l] becomes [r], and vice versa. These are the most basic permutations in the underlying CH-cycle.
Ignoring such permutations, vords can be returned to their basic forms. Thus [shol] is considered a permutation and can be returned to its basic form: [chol].
It is evident that the purpose of the QOKEEDY cycle is to bind together the cycling components of the CHOLDAIIN cycle.
The purpose of the gallows glyphs is to join, bind, bridge. They are placed in the breaks (spaces, pauses) of the CHOLDAIIN cycle. (To continue a weaving analogy, they are knots - a weaving being an assembly of knots.)
The CHOLDAIIN cycle is short phase. The QOKEEDY cycle is long.
Note that this iteration of the Vord Paradigm specifically permits vords with two gallows: these are cases of vords extending across two phases of the cycle.
What is called Currier A is text in which the CH-cycle dominates whereas in Currier B the Q-cycle overwhelms the underlying CH-cycle.
I must say that developing vord paradigms (as study tools) in this direction inevitably starts to suggest analogies with music.
What behaves like this: cycles of looping and interweaving refrains that seem mathematical in some way but are subject to endless variation? It very much resembles a (polyphonic) musical texture in this respect.
On entropy and musical notation I note this study:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
CHOLDAIIN
QOKEEDY
Both, however, have variants:
DARCHOL
QOKEDAR
There are thus no less than four paradigmic vords. I have attempted to reconcile all four at common points in order to reveal a more comprehensive system.
The system has two main features that permit this:
1. It treats the vord paradigms as CYCLES.
2. It treats vord BREAKS as the critical points in the cycles.
The view of the text implicit in this is that there is a repeating base cycle (the CHOLDAIN or CH cycle) that is like the warp of a weave. A second cycle – a weft – ( the QOKEEDY or Q cycle) then intrudes and is intermixed with the base cycle.
(The variants DARCHOL and QOKEDAR actually arise out of the intermixing.)
This CYCLIC and INTERWOVEN nature of the text is the reason any single paradigm will be inadequate. The text is woven of two main threads.The bulk of vords are hybrids of the two.
The main distincton between the two threads is that the QOKEEDY (Q) cycle carries or contains gallows glyphs. The CHOLDAIIN cycle contains benched glyphs but no gallows. The gallows glyphs are the whole issue.
The intermingling of the two cycles comes about when the gallows glyphs are inserted into the repeating base cycle.
Concerning this, namely the way the two threads or streams of text converge, the invariable rule is:
Gallows glyphs are inserted into the SPACES of the CHOLDAIIN cycle.
Those are the points where the two threads are linked together. That is the rivet. That is where one cycle is anchored into the other. Other points of contact follow from that anchor.
Note that the base cycle has both soft and hard breaks. There is a soft break between CHOL and DAIIN. There is a hard break before CHOL and after DAIIN. The base sequence goes:
** CHOL*DAIIN ** CHOL*DAIIN ** CHOL etc.
Looking closer at this underlying churn, CHOL and DAIIN are versions of the same vord, and DAR is a variant of DAIIN.
Secondarily, or simultaneously, the same cycle goes:
** DAR*CHOL ** DAR*CHOL ** DAR*CHOL ** etc.
In the end, therefore, everything comes down to a threefold pattern of glyphs:
1 = Ch D
2 = O A
3 = L R
This is at the very foundation – the atomic level – of the non-gallows text. We cannot reduce it any further.
* * *
All the permutations of glyphs familiar to us from earlier vord paradigms are not shown in this current presentation.
[ch] can become [sh], for instance, and [n] can become a range of final glyphs.
In this core formation [ch] becomes [d], [o] becomes [a] and [l] becomes [r], and vice versa. These are the most basic permutations in the underlying CH-cycle.
Ignoring such permutations, vords can be returned to their basic forms. Thus [shol] is considered a permutation and can be returned to its basic form: [chol].
* * *
It is evident that the purpose of the QOKEEDY cycle is to bind together the cycling components of the CHOLDAIIN cycle.
The purpose of the gallows glyphs is to join, bind, bridge. They are placed in the breaks (spaces, pauses) of the CHOLDAIIN cycle. (To continue a weaving analogy, they are knots - a weaving being an assembly of knots.)
The CHOLDAIIN cycle is short phase. The QOKEEDY cycle is long.
Note that this iteration of the Vord Paradigm specifically permits vords with two gallows: these are cases of vords extending across two phases of the cycle.
What is called Currier A is text in which the CH-cycle dominates whereas in Currier B the Q-cycle overwhelms the underlying CH-cycle.
* * *
I must say that developing vord paradigms (as study tools) in this direction inevitably starts to suggest analogies with music.
What behaves like this: cycles of looping and interweaving refrains that seem mathematical in some way but are subject to endless variation? It very much resembles a (polyphonic) musical texture in this respect.
On entropy and musical notation I note this study:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.