22-10-2024, 06:57 PM
[quote="pfeaster" pid='61811' dateline='1729547465']
[quote="Koen G" pid='61796' dateline='1729455228']
It's hard to imagine [m] functioning in a simple substitution cipher as anything but a null, abbreviation, hyphenation, punctuation, or ornamentation. But if the script works in some other way, I could imagine [m] serving a real purpose linked to some situation that happens to occur mostly at the ends of lines -- something beyond just marking or embellishing them.
Let's imagine just for the sake of argument that Voynichese is designed to encode text in blocks of two plaintext letters, and that plaintext words are never split across line boundaries or image intrusions. If the quantity of plaintext characters in a line (or before an image intrusion) is even, there's no problem.
I apologize for inserting some of my ideas into this post, but I believe the discussion about VM alphabet should not ignore Slavic grammar and the possible Slavic language of the VM.
I suppose this puzzle would not be solved as long as the VM glyphs (EVA m and g) are referred to as m and g, which automatically makes our brain think of Latin m and g. Since many VM glyphs resemble Latin letters, as suggested by many researchers, the first logical step would be to see which Latin letter EVA m represents. There are several clues in the VM text, among them the separately written letters i and l, which look exactly like Latin letters i and l (as well as EVA). Considering EVA m as ligature il (connected from the top of i to the bow in l), we get the reading -il, except that the l has extended tail. In a similar way, EVA g looks like Latin d (8-like shape being frequently used interchangeably with d, or for different sound of d). I believe that the 'tail' on both letters stands for missing semivowel at the end, which is pronounced, but not written.
Assuming that EVA m cannot be equivalent of Latin m, we need to find the Latin m in the VM. That, too, is not difficult, since the three minims have already been used in the 15th century for the Latin letter m, and two minims for n. The flourish on the last minim in the sequence of three minims might or might not be important, since the flourish was used inconsistently; some scribes used upward flourish, some shape it as downward 'tail', and some made the last three minims even.
If the EVA m stands for il, we are faced with the question why the scribe felt he needed to form a ligature. The answer to this question can be found in Slavic grammar. In Cyrillic writing, iotated L had a special letter to indicate proper pronunciation. Slovenians would say 'ludi' (people), Serbians would say 'ljudi'.
The iotation is a grammatical term for the sound change when L comes in contact with j like sound and acquires a lj- like sound. The lj in this case would be a diphthong. In the 16th century Slovenian writing, the final y was often replaced by ji or ij, but eventually, the final j was dropped.
Like -im, -am, -om (EVA -iiin, -aiin, -oiin), -al and -il and -ol are among the most common inflectional suffixes. Such iotated l in -il, -ilj is always pronounced as -il. This suffix is used in verbs after the stem ending on i (hodi - he walks, je hodil - he walked, bo hodil - he will walk, bi hodil - he would walk). When the stem is ending on a, like in tola (Old word for he saves, he appeases), the past or future participle is tolal (for 3rd pers. sing. masc.), while the suffix for the first person singular is -tolam. A similar Slovenian word talal has means 'he was sharing', 'he was dividing'. EVA otalalg looks like otalald (supine), where a slight tail indicates non-written semivowel at the end.
I suppose the scribe had difficulty differentiating the pronunciation of final l, which in some words was pronounced as u or w, and in some words as l. Sometimes, the same word in different grammatical form is pronounced differently.
Example: DAR (gift) - DARIM (I am giving gift) - SEM DARIL/SEM DARIU/SEM DARIW (both pronunciation were used in medieval Slovenian) - SO DARIL (phonetic for 'they were giving gifts'. In this case, the proper infinitive would be DARILI (in VM darily), hence the final y was replaced by some scribes as y, and dropped by others.
The iotated il is also found in some nouns of neuter gender where final ending is dropped, like DARIL (instead of DARILO), KADIL (instead of KADILO). In these words, the final L cannot be pronounced as u or w.
[quote="Koen G" pid='61796' dateline='1729455228']
It's hard to imagine [m] functioning in a simple substitution cipher as anything but a null, abbreviation, hyphenation, punctuation, or ornamentation. But if the script works in some other way, I could imagine [m] serving a real purpose linked to some situation that happens to occur mostly at the ends of lines -- something beyond just marking or embellishing them.
Let's imagine just for the sake of argument that Voynichese is designed to encode text in blocks of two plaintext letters, and that plaintext words are never split across line boundaries or image intrusions. If the quantity of plaintext characters in a line (or before an image intrusion) is even, there's no problem.
I apologize for inserting some of my ideas into this post, but I believe the discussion about VM alphabet should not ignore Slavic grammar and the possible Slavic language of the VM.
I suppose this puzzle would not be solved as long as the VM glyphs (EVA m and g) are referred to as m and g, which automatically makes our brain think of Latin m and g. Since many VM glyphs resemble Latin letters, as suggested by many researchers, the first logical step would be to see which Latin letter EVA m represents. There are several clues in the VM text, among them the separately written letters i and l, which look exactly like Latin letters i and l (as well as EVA). Considering EVA m as ligature il (connected from the top of i to the bow in l), we get the reading -il, except that the l has extended tail. In a similar way, EVA g looks like Latin d (8-like shape being frequently used interchangeably with d, or for different sound of d). I believe that the 'tail' on both letters stands for missing semivowel at the end, which is pronounced, but not written.
Assuming that EVA m cannot be equivalent of Latin m, we need to find the Latin m in the VM. That, too, is not difficult, since the three minims have already been used in the 15th century for the Latin letter m, and two minims for n. The flourish on the last minim in the sequence of three minims might or might not be important, since the flourish was used inconsistently; some scribes used upward flourish, some shape it as downward 'tail', and some made the last three minims even.
If the EVA m stands for il, we are faced with the question why the scribe felt he needed to form a ligature. The answer to this question can be found in Slavic grammar. In Cyrillic writing, iotated L had a special letter to indicate proper pronunciation. Slovenians would say 'ludi' (people), Serbians would say 'ljudi'.
The iotation is a grammatical term for the sound change when L comes in contact with j like sound and acquires a lj- like sound. The lj in this case would be a diphthong. In the 16th century Slovenian writing, the final y was often replaced by ji or ij, but eventually, the final j was dropped.
Like -im, -am, -om (EVA -iiin, -aiin, -oiin), -al and -il and -ol are among the most common inflectional suffixes. Such iotated l in -il, -ilj is always pronounced as -il. This suffix is used in verbs after the stem ending on i (hodi - he walks, je hodil - he walked, bo hodil - he will walk, bi hodil - he would walk). When the stem is ending on a, like in tola (Old word for he saves, he appeases), the past or future participle is tolal (for 3rd pers. sing. masc.), while the suffix for the first person singular is -tolam. A similar Slovenian word talal has means 'he was sharing', 'he was dividing'. EVA otalalg looks like otalald (supine), where a slight tail indicates non-written semivowel at the end.
I suppose the scribe had difficulty differentiating the pronunciation of final l, which in some words was pronounced as u or w, and in some words as l. Sometimes, the same word in different grammatical form is pronounced differently.
Example: DAR (gift) - DARIM (I am giving gift) - SEM DARIL/SEM DARIU/SEM DARIW (both pronunciation were used in medieval Slovenian) - SO DARIL (phonetic for 'they were giving gifts'. In this case, the proper infinitive would be DARILI (in VM darily), hence the final y was replaced by some scribes as y, and dropped by others.
The iotated il is also found in some nouns of neuter gender where final ending is dropped, like DARIL (instead of DARILO), KADIL (instead of KADILO). In these words, the final L cannot be pronounced as u or w.