17-06-2026, 08:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-06-2026, 08:10 PM by Stefan Wirtz_2.)
As far as I see these answers, @Jorge_Stolfi constructed his alphabet with counts & calculations, using the relation of two appearance' numbers, compared to a relation of numbers for a second character, to find this second character somehow "being just another edition of the first character", right?
I wouldn't cross that bridge, statistical coincidences may not found a proof this way.
Apart from the fact that professional scribes should know where to put a tail onto a dash (taken the very small number of mishaps and corrections in VMS, they knew very well what they are doing),
is this theory based upon the assumption of someone reading and writing from an unprecise draft -- but I find many suggestions here that the VMS was dictated. All r-instead-of-n just being hearing errors now...?
However, no one here can answer the question of 'VMS: dictated or hardcopied?', so that is an assumption with a chance.
ir does not look rather shorter or much easier to write; how can it be a really helpful abbreviation then? This is also a question for all other abbreviation ideas.
Many "leading voices" in this forum discuss about "low entropy", "small character set", "high predictability", "frequent repetition": all of it no bringer of joy into work with VMS.
Why could it be useful to even reduce complexity and do things better then?
Anyway, this post was aimed to collect VMS symbols as parts with unique appearances and clearly distinguishable usages for an alphabet, to gain some common ground. Even "mistakes" may fulfill these expectations, but "abbreviations" not so much. We obviously all see something different in VMS.
I would have expected other discussions, but ok, may it be like this here.
I wouldn't cross that bridge, statistical coincidences may not found a proof this way.
(17-06-2026, 06:27 AM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
And the Scribe misreading sloppy in as r is a simple an plausible explanation for that pattern.
Apart from the fact that professional scribes should know where to put a tail onto a dash (taken the very small number of mishaps and corrections in VMS, they knew very well what they are doing),
is this theory based upon the assumption of someone reading and writing from an unprecise draft -- but I find many suggestions here that the VMS was dictated. All r-instead-of-n just being hearing errors now...?
However, no one here can answer the question of 'VMS: dictated or hardcopied?', so that is an assumption with a chance.
(17-06-2026, 06:27 AM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Moreover, if all ir endings are actually iin, the structure of the words becomes significantly simpler. And other things work better too.
ir does not look rather shorter or much easier to write; how can it be a really helpful abbreviation then? This is also a question for all other abbreviation ideas.
Many "leading voices" in this forum discuss about "low entropy", "small character set", "high predictability", "frequent repetition": all of it no bringer of joy into work with VMS.
Why could it be useful to even reduce complexity and do things better then?
Anyway, this post was aimed to collect VMS symbols as parts with unique appearances and clearly distinguishable usages for an alphabet, to gain some common ground. Even "mistakes" may fulfill these expectations, but "abbreviations" not so much. We obviously all see something different in VMS.
I would have expected other discussions, but ok, may it be like this here.