30-10-2016, 08:15 PM
After Sam, I also don't support conclusions about equivalence of characters from these sequences.
(By the way, we discussed the matter of j vs d (which D'Imperio misses) recently somewhere on the forum, and the conclusion for me was that those were designed as two different characters).
Rather, I come to the opposite (and sad) conclusion.
Contextually, it looks quite likely that these four sequences should (i.e. were originally intended to) be identical. But they are not. Why? Because they result from the copying process performed by someone who did not understand the meaning of this sequence. It is obvious that if one understands the meaning of all characters and the particular meaning of this sequence, he would be highly unlikely to mistake f for p. But the copyist not understanding the matter either did not realize at all that , say, p and f are separate characters, or he realized that but due to the low quality of the original he had to make case-by-case interpretation decisions which resulted e.g. in two f's plus two p's where four f's (or four p's) should have been put down.
Developing this assumption in the light of the fact that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is probably not the only folio where the original was not conveyed 100% correctly, one realizes that our chances to decrypt Voynichese sadly diminish.
(By the way, we discussed the matter of j vs d (which D'Imperio misses) recently somewhere on the forum, and the conclusion for me was that those were designed as two different characters).
Rather, I come to the opposite (and sad) conclusion.
Contextually, it looks quite likely that these four sequences should (i.e. were originally intended to) be identical. But they are not. Why? Because they result from the copying process performed by someone who did not understand the meaning of this sequence. It is obvious that if one understands the meaning of all characters and the particular meaning of this sequence, he would be highly unlikely to mistake f for p. But the copyist not understanding the matter either did not realize at all that , say, p and f are separate characters, or he realized that but due to the low quality of the original he had to make case-by-case interpretation decisions which resulted e.g. in two f's plus two p's where four f's (or four p's) should have been put down.
Developing this assumption in the light of the fact that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is probably not the only folio where the original was not conveyed 100% correctly, one realizes that our chances to decrypt Voynichese sadly diminish.