03-12-2022, 10:22 AM
The two vord paradigms I’ve presented in this thread as a dual paradigm model of the Voynich text – developed from Patrick Feaster’s study of “loops” – whereby the text is an intermingling of two streams or cycles, can be reduced down to two glyph sets.
We might call a vord paradigm a telos. It is an end towards which the text moves. But the Voynich text is formed in the tension between two teloi, CHOLDAIIN and QOKEEDY. There is a spectrum between two poles. Words are formed in a tension between two stillpoints, two points of resolution.
Here I consider the teloi just as glyph sets.
The paradigm CHOLDAIIN obviously covers [ch], [o], [l], [d], [a], [i] and [n].
The second paradigm QOKEEDY shares [o] and [d] but provides [q], [e] and [y] and the gallows [k].
What then of the other glyphs/letters that constitute the text?
Some of them are demonstrably variations on the glyphs of CHOLDAIIN. The plainest example is [sh] which is a modification of [ch].
Modifications of CHOLDAIIN yield [sh], [s] and [r], along with the rare finals [m] and [g].
There are no such modifications in QOKEEDY except, of course, that there are four variations of the gallows. So as well as [q], [e] and [y], QOKEEDY provides: [k], [t], [f] and [p].
This leaves only the benched gallows which by this analysis are a special case because they are a combination of the two paradigms.
We note that CHOLDAIIN contains a bench but no gallows. Conversely, QOKEEDY contains a gallows but no bench.
In the benched gallows the two streams overlap and compound. The gallows intrudes upon, or into, the bench.
Thus, by these two vord models, or templates, we can account for the full glyph set as observed in the running text, barring rare glyphs.
The two glyph sets in this breakdown are:
Ch O L D A I N Sh S R M G
Q K T P F E Y
The benched gallows are separate being, literally, an overlapping of the two sets using glyphs already covered.
In the following depiction of text (lifted from Takahashi - p. 19v and 112v) I have highlighted the glyphs belonging to QOKEEDY in red. The glyphs in the CHOLDAIIN set, CHOLDAIIN and its variant glyphs, remain plain.
We might call a vord paradigm a telos. It is an end towards which the text moves. But the Voynich text is formed in the tension between two teloi, CHOLDAIIN and QOKEEDY. There is a spectrum between two poles. Words are formed in a tension between two stillpoints, two points of resolution.
Here I consider the teloi just as glyph sets.
The paradigm CHOLDAIIN obviously covers [ch], [o], [l], [d], [a], [i] and [n].
The second paradigm QOKEEDY shares [o] and [d] but provides [q], [e] and [y] and the gallows [k].
What then of the other glyphs/letters that constitute the text?
Some of them are demonstrably variations on the glyphs of CHOLDAIIN. The plainest example is [sh] which is a modification of [ch].
Modifications of CHOLDAIIN yield [sh], [s] and [r], along with the rare finals [m] and [g].
There are no such modifications in QOKEEDY except, of course, that there are four variations of the gallows. So as well as [q], [e] and [y], QOKEEDY provides: [k], [t], [f] and [p].
This leaves only the benched gallows which by this analysis are a special case because they are a combination of the two paradigms.
We note that CHOLDAIIN contains a bench but no gallows. Conversely, QOKEEDY contains a gallows but no bench.
In the benched gallows the two streams overlap and compound. The gallows intrudes upon, or into, the bench.
Thus, by these two vord models, or templates, we can account for the full glyph set as observed in the running text, barring rare glyphs.
The two glyph sets in this breakdown are:
Ch O L D A I N Sh S R M G
Q K T P F E Y
The benched gallows are separate being, literally, an overlapping of the two sets using glyphs already covered.
* * *
In the following depiction of text (lifted from Takahashi - p. 19v and 112v) I have highlighted the glyphs belonging to QOKEEDY in red. The glyphs in the CHOLDAIIN set, CHOLDAIIN and its variant glyphs, remain plain.
This is a simple way of showing the interweaving of the two cycles and their different concentrations in different parts of the text. The main visible difference is the proliferation of the [e] glyph in one and its scarcity in the other.
As I see it, the CHOLDAIIN cycle is the base cycle. This would follow because it supplies the bulk of the glyphs. It cycles underneath the entire text. The QOKEEDY cycle – featuring the gallows - intrudes but in a large portion of the text dominates.
This is the distinction people have called Currier A and Currier B. The Currier A text are those pages and passages relatively unadorned (or unmolested) by the QOKEEDY cycle. In Currier B QOKEEDY overwhelms the CHOLDAIIN cycle. But these are not static “dialects” but changing mixes of the two streams.
There is a lot more B than A in the manuscript but the CHOLDAIIN cycle provides the base, and the nuts and bolts - most of the glyphs - of the text throughout.
As I see it, the CHOLDAIIN cycle is the base cycle. This would follow because it supplies the bulk of the glyphs. It cycles underneath the entire text. The QOKEEDY cycle – featuring the gallows - intrudes but in a large portion of the text dominates.
This is the distinction people have called Currier A and Currier B. The Currier A text are those pages and passages relatively unadorned (or unmolested) by the QOKEEDY cycle. In Currier B QOKEEDY overwhelms the CHOLDAIIN cycle. But these are not static “dialects” but changing mixes of the two streams.
There is a lot more B than A in the manuscript but the CHOLDAIIN cycle provides the base, and the nuts and bolts - most of the glyphs - of the text throughout.