Options

Gallows Island

Index
Gallows Island
Gallows Island

Antonio García Jiménez > 07-08-2025, 08:58 PM

At last Sunday's conference Tavie gave a brilliant yet entertaining presentation on the strange statistics of gallows. Among other things, she spokes of the rare preference of two of the gallows in the first line of the paragraphs. There's no explanation for this behavior in a linguistic system. Nor is there one for benched gallows, when we also see benches on both sides of the gallows.

Tavie didn't mention another very significant phenomenon: gallows that extend their arms, those strange stranddle gallows. What does this mean in a linguistic system? It's hard to believe it indicates something ornamental when we see the gallow with one leg and two loops resting on a [c] and other oddities.

I don't know if the linguistic mirage will last another hundred years, but what I am sure of is that one day it will be abandoned.
RE: No text, but a visual code

Jorge_Stolfi > 08-08-2025, 10:44 AM

(07-08-2025, 08:58 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Among other things, she spokes of the rare preference of two of the gallows in the first line of the paragraphs. There's no explanation for this behavior in a linguistic system.

The use of a different font or letter style on the first line of every paragraph seems to have been a habit of some scribes. Here is an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from the 1300s or early 1400s. Here is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

The p and f gallows are most likely just calligraphic variants of t and k, or of some combinations like te and ke (it is still unclear which ones), that the Scribe could use on the first line of paragraphs or in words that were "important" for some reason. Just as in English one uses capital Roman letters on titles, on the first word of each sentence, and on proper names. And in German also for every noun.

Note that the "hooked arm" variants of p and f, which unfortunately are not distinguished in most transcriptions, may be distinct combinations than "unhooked" p and f.

Quote:Nor is there one for benched gallows, when we also see benches on both sides of the gallows.

Rene may correct me, but IIUC in the Thai script there are elements of a letter that may be added at the left of the main body, at the right of it, or inside it.

And then there are schemes to indicate complex tones by digits like "y3a2o5" for "yao" with a "dipping" tone.

Quote:gallows that extend their arms, those strange stranddle gallows. What does this mean in a linguistic system?

Quite probably nothing. Those elaborate gallows are almost surely decorative details added by the Scribe.

All the best, --jorge
RE: No text, but a visual code

Stefan Wirtz_2 > 08-08-2025, 12:04 PM

(08-08-2025, 10:44 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
The p and f gallows are most likely just calligraphic variants of t and k, or of some combinations like te and ke (it is still unclear which ones),
[..]

Why should they? Is there any proof for that?
With a letter-poor alphabet there is no reason to reduce the character set even further by setting any „calligraphy“ in text.
I would see only the two big red symbols of f1 as a kind of decorative calligraphy at all.
RE: No text, but a visual code

Antonio García Jiménez > 08-08-2025, 12:58 PM

I think like you Stefan, except I don't believe the Voynich script is an alphabet.

Jorge, I think you should see the presentation Tavie gave, and how it doesn't hold that p is interchangeable with k e
RE: No text, but a visual code

Jorge_Stolfi > 08-08-2025, 01:44 PM

(08-08-2025, 12:04 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why should [ p and f be just calligraphic variants of t and k ] ? Is there any proof for that?

No proof, of course, but a good hint: the fact that the "puffs" p and f are very common on the head lines of parags, while the "taks" t and k are less common there.

If the puffs and taks are distinct letters, then we must conclude that (1) the head lines of parags are in a different "language" than the rest of the parag -- a language that differs mainly in p/f replacing t/k; and (2) the break between head line and second line is semantically significant (rather than being simply the point where the Scribe reached the right rail).

One problem with these alternative explanations is that parag head lines are often quite a bit shorter than normal because of intruding figures. See for example f3r. Parag P3 has a puff near the end of its head line, which is almost full length. The head lines of P1 and P2 are only half as wide, and yet there are no puffs in their second lines.

As for the alphabet being already too small: we don't know that. There is no reason to assume that each glyph is an independent letter. ee, eee, ii, iii, Che, Chy, etc may all be polygraphs that work as distinct letters (phonemes) of the alphabet, unrelated to single e, i, Ch. Like "ch" and "zz" in Italian, "μπ" in Greek, "rr" in Spanish, and tons of other examples in practically every language.

All the best, --jorge
RE: No text, but a visual code

Antonio García Jiménez > 08-08-2025, 03:57 PM

Captain Currier can tell you better:

"One might conclude that p f are an elaborate form of t k , with the same value. This is often the case in medieval manuscripts, especially in illuminated ones; certain letters have magnified, aberrant, beautified forms. But, not true! These two letters are not
the same as those two, as the statistics show. The letters t k are followed anywhere in a word by our little friend e about half the time (say 750 out of a total of 1500), including initially. These two, that p f are never, ever, anywhere in the manuscript, followed by e. These latter symbols are much less frequent than the first two, but their occurrence followed by c is zero. I don't have to calculate sigma's on that! Therefore, p f are not aberrant or variant forms of t k, but separate letters in their own right. This holds true through the whole manuscrpt. That is one of the peculiar things about the manuscript: we have two languages they are definite, no doubt about it at all but there are features like this that follow through from one language to another. That's just an item of incidental intelligence; there it is, for what it's worth".
RE: No text, but a visual code

Bluetoes101 > 08-08-2025, 04:42 PM

To play devils advocate, there is another option. If we assume the text is language, in some way or another.
The lines where these things are found may not be in the same language, or written with the same intent.

If you look up any plant in a book, or just Wikipedia, it will tell you Latin names at the top.

Daffodil as an example from Wikipedia.
Narcissus is a genus of predominantly spring flowering perennial plants of the amaryllis family, Amaryllidaceae.
Various common names including daffodil, narcissus (plural narcissi), and jonquil

There's some very strange things happening here for English if one went into it expecting everything to be English.
Though it would be perfectly normal to revert to "they are commonly found in fields and grassy areas all over" or whatever, below.

As for reducing the alphabet further by not having p/f, it already is, just remove the first line (in most cases).
RE: No text, but a visual code

Antonio García Jiménez > 08-08-2025, 07:35 PM

If we assume the text is language... It's something I don't assume.
RE: No text, but a visual code

Jorge_Stolfi > 08-08-2025, 08:00 PM

(08-08-2025, 03:57 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Captain Currier can tell you better:

"[...] not true! These two letters are not the same as those two, as the statistics show. The letters t k are followed anywhere in a word by our little friend e about half the time (say 750 out of a total of 1500), including initially. These two, that p f are never, ever, anywhere in the manuscript, followed by e. [...]

Yes, I know that very well. That is why I wrote "The p and f gallows are most likely just calligraphic variants of t and k, or of some combinations like te and ke (it is still unclear which ones)"

The rules for replacing taks by puffs may have been complex and not necessarily invertible. In French typography it was customary to omit diacritics when text was written in all caps, even though they are often essential to identify a word, e.g. to distinguish "ou" (= "or") from "où" (= "where") and "du" (= "of the") from "dû" (= "owed"). People were supposed to guess the missing diacritics, and context was usually sufficient for that.

And then there is the issue of whether the hook in the arm of p/f is significant or not. And, if so, whether the Scribe was aware of that detail, and did not add or omit the hook at random...

All the best, --jorge
RE: No text, but a visual code

Antonio García Jiménez > 08-08-2025, 10:21 PM

I think there are some forum members who contradict you, including tavie, Torsten and dashstofsk. Me too, but I contradict everyone because for me it is a graphic system with iconic symbols.
Next Oldest Next Newest

Gallows Island

Index

Gallows Island

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code

RE: No text, but a visual code