david > 10-03-2016, 10:42 PM
Sam G > 10-03-2016, 11:08 PM
Emma May Smith > 10-03-2016, 11:14 PM
Sam G > 10-03-2016, 11:20 PM
-JKP- > 10-03-2016, 11:25 PM
(10-03-2016, 11:08 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Everything I see points to alphabet (i.e. 1 glyph = 1 segmental phoneme, basically)
...
- Apparent pronounceability and consonant/vowel alternation when viewed as alphabetic...
Sam G > 10-03-2016, 11:53 PM
-JKP- > 11-03-2016, 12:21 AM
(10-03-2016, 11:53 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You could do the same thing with English or any other language. Try it with that script. That doesn't mean that the consonant-vowel distinction in English or other languages is not meaningful.
ReneZ > 11-03-2016, 03:17 AM
(10-03-2016, 11:08 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Everything I see points to alphabet (i.e. 1 glyph = 1 segmental phoneme, basically)
The only other possibility is that glyphs represent sub-alphabetic units. Stolfi thought the words were likely monosyllables, apparently because many words have a tripartite structure which could suggest that a word represents a CVC syllable. Actually that's just a guess since I haven't yet found where he laid out his reasoning for his view in detail, if he ever did. I can maybe imagine that a medieval Latin scribe might have chosen to represent a complex monosyllable by way of analogy with a multisyllabic word, but my guess is that words actually are multisyllabic in many cases.
- Number of glyphs matches alphabets
- Apparent pronounceability and consonant/vowel alternation when viewed as alphabetic
- Apparent derivation from Roman alphabet and Latin abbreviation means the script creator was familiar with alphabetic writing
- Structure and symmetry of the glyph set is similar to what is seen in phoneme inventories of natural languages
- Word length
Sam G > 11-03-2016, 10:00 AM
(11-03-2016, 03:17 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The biggest 'problem' with the Voynich alphabet, in my opinion, is the funny behaviour of Eva 'ch', I could imagine many things, for example in case the text is a phonetic rendition of some language foreign to the author/scribe:
Eva-'ch' could just be aspiration, like the 'h' in English. 'ch' and 'sh' could be different types (real or perceived) like the two different sipritus symbols in Greek.
ckh and cth could be aspirated versions of unaspirated consonants k and t. (all Eva)
Quote:I'm not saying that any of these last points has a direct bearing on the Voynich MS text, of course. Just examples in the good old spirit of Jacques Guy, about the many, many unexpected things that may occur.
(11-03-2016, 12:21 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(10-03-2016, 11:53 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You could do the same thing with English or any other language. Try it with that script. That doesn't mean that the consonant-vowel distinction in English or other languages is not meaningful.
The vowel-consonant distinction is meaningful in English and other languages.
That does not mean glyphs that look like vowels in the VMS are vowels and yet I see a very high proportion of people assuming they are. It could be an abjad, with some of the consonants shaped like vowels. It could be digits, with some of them shaped like vowels. The vowel shapes could be nulls or modifiers rather than vowels.
It's very important, in analyzing the text, to get away from the idea that vowel shapes are vowels until there is other evidence to confirm that they are.
-JKP- > 11-03-2016, 10:33 AM