11-09-2016, 08:12 PM
(11-09-2016, 05:56 PM)Diane wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Emma,
Given the remarks made in a letter to Kircher by Georg Baresch - do you think it possible that each glyph might represent a logogram - either by substituting a simpler form for the more complex one, or by recording (approximately) the sound of each? I expect the latter would be more likely, and that would make each glyph a syllable, I suppose.
I can't speak to the origins of the script. But the size of the sign inventory is around 18 to 22 characters. This suggests that if the script encodes sounds it does so alphabetically. I count abjads as alphabets here, though I would argue that vowels are at least partially indicated.
Saying that, I'm open to the idea that the system is more complex than a simple alphabet. It could be that single sounds are represented by combinations of characters. This is most likely in [e] and [i] sequences (I wouldn't be surprised if a word like [aiin] is actually a long vowel, for example), but could also be true for strings like [kch] and [tch].
Also, I'm not sure that either Baresch or Kircher knew anything of value about the Voynich manuscript besides its history.