(20-11-2022, 04:37 PM)Juan_Sali Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The marks on the left in a few pages of this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. resemble the gallows starting paragraphs:
Hi, Juan Sali:
You are correct that there are distinct shape similarities between the marks on the left of the manuscript and the gallows glyphs. These marks are an abbreviation for the Latin word "item." You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is a definition so you can see how it is defined in Latin. The item symbol (term) was used as a type of paragraph signal/organizational aid for medieval writers and readers. In many ways, it is similar to our modern indentation that occurs at the beginning of paragraphs -- although it is not quite the same.
That is because item signals a shift in topic that for some writers is closer to a modern sentence-level distinction and for some writers it is closer to a modern paragraph level distinction. Keep in mind that consistent punctuation and obvious paragraphs are still in the future. I think the closest parallel that would be universally applicable might be a list marking -- but no order indicated by the mark. But don't get confused -- medieval writers/copyists used "item" in writing for many more discussions than modern writers would use a numbered list for -- really any kind of text can be broken up into "items" to aid understanding and/or memory retention.
This is in contrast to the rubricated (red ink) marks at the bottom left, which generally stand for the Latin "capitulum" -- or "chapter." You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is a definition (look to the DMLBS, which is specific for medieval Latin, for the best definition). But again, this definitely isn't the same thing as a modern chapter. I get the impression that "larger" more overarching thoughts are ofter marked with the "C" symbol, while smaller scope, more supporting content is marked with a series of "item."
This all being said, there is no evidence that Voynich glyphs are used
exclusively in the same way that these symbols were used in writing at the time. They are just not present in the right frequencies or only in the right places to be able to draw that conclusion. There is distinct evidence that these "standard" symbols (and many others) were appropriated (borrowed) for another use within Voynichese and what that use is precisely is the goal of much of the statistical work surrounding gallows glyphs.
But it is great you've seen the similarity, but unfortunately, assuming the same function (at least only) is highly unlikely. It would not surprise me, however, that these symbols are being used at least somewhat like they were used in standard text. Certainly in the cipher work I have done there is a distinct inability to completely divorce the common/plain text use of a symbol from the way it is being used in the representation (e.g. even fanciful symbols still bear resemblance to the Latin alphabet symbol shape) -- but whether this is happening with the Voynich symbols remains in the realm of speculation.
Michelle