Anton > 08-06-2017, 08:36 PM
-JKP- > 09-06-2017, 01:55 AM
-JKP- > 09-06-2017, 05:37 AM
Wladimir D > 09-06-2017, 11:50 AM
Anton > 09-06-2017, 12:17 PM
Anton > 09-06-2017, 12:25 PM
-JKP- > 09-06-2017, 11:46 PM
(09-06-2017, 12:17 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@JKP
My table is not complete, partly because I don't have the complete picture, partly because the rejection of our submission effectively interrupted the work, and I turned to other (non-Voynich) matters. So I just put it here "as is", not without the idea to push myself to work further upon it.
I forgot to mention that the table does not deal with "aggregate" characters - those which may be constructed by combining three or more base shapes. Like benched gallows and others.
Also, the order of the base shapes in the table is arbitrary. I don't know what the actual order is, if any has been intended at all.
Quote:You are right that some glyphs are not included, that's because there are some problems with y, as well as with r/n/s/b which I'm in doubt how to deal with.
Quote:Regarding r/n/s/b. First of all, I am quite far from certain that the character £ is the right component to get r from i (or s from e etc.). In the text, the tails in r, s, n etc. are more "sweepy" and asymmetric than this one. This might be attributed to the certain degree of freedom given to the pen after the alphabet was constructed and approved, but anyway, visually the actual tails in the text and the symbol £ just don't look similar. The only supposed composite in which it fits well is o (that is, e plus £). Maybe also Î.
Quote:Next, you raise the important question about the difference between, say, r and n (or s and b). The most straightforward explanation is indeed that the difference is in the point to which the tail is attached. But, as you correctly note, this does not fit the grid. Maybe, while constructing the alphabet, the guy somehow "ran out" of the opportunities presented by the grid, so he needed to introduce an additional principle.
Another explanation is that the actual difference is meant to be in the shapes of the tails, and not in the attachment point. Only that this difference is blurred due to the "degree of freedom of the quill" that I suggested above. Hence the question is if this difference can be traced somewhere (maybe in some more "elaborate" parts of the VMS where the scribe was not in a hurry).
Quote:With the s, there is the additional complication that the EVA "s" actually looks quite differently in different places, even when it is standalone.
Quote:Regarding y. I'm not certain what is the shape that forms its tail. I had the idea that it might be the shape that is top column 5 in your table, especially given that there are such its composites with the dash as EVA &131; and &204; But I could not find it standalone in the Extended EVA. However, your table suggests that such standalone occurrence(s) exist(s)! (Can you please advise where?)
Quote:One more interesting point related to this base shape (should I call it "poker" for brevity?) is whether it is actually the vertical or the poker that is used in the formation of q. Sometimes the line is definitely straight in q, and sometimes it looks like this poker. Two different versions of q even co-exist in one and the same line (e.g. f80v, line 8). So are they really meant to be different or it is just "freedom" of the pen? I guess the latter, because in some instances of q the line is curved into the other side - which makes it impossible to distinguish between the vertical and the poker components.
Anton > 10-06-2017, 12:49 AM
ReneZ > 11-06-2017, 11:37 AM
-JKP- > 11-06-2017, 11:54 AM