(22-06-2026, 12:44 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are degrading carefully written Voynichese characters to some "fancies" (p,f) of the same letter, abbreviations
Those fancifications and abbreviations are intentional and carefully written too. But the places where they occur strongly suggest that they are indeed variants of other glyphs, not distinct "letters" of the alphabet.
Quote:deformations
We can see everywhere in the VMS how much the actual occurrences of each glyph type can deviate from what it is generally assumed to be the ideal form. Surely sometimes the deviation got so large that
we did not accept it as the intended glyph type but assumed it was a distinct one. Which may well be the case for
u,
g,
Ih,
CTHh, ...
Quote:and dump the working-horses of this alphabet into some "modifier" bin.
If you are referring to
e, calling it a "modifier" does not mean it is less important than
r or
k. In English the "h" after "t" or "p" is a "modifier" of those letters, in that sense. But "th" and "ph" are not just variants of "t" and "p"; they are distinct "letters" of the "alphabet", on the same level as "b" or "r".
Quote:With the same right, one could shoot t and k into the very corner of "being just of identical meaning, some writers did not like the curls much".
I don't propose such a thing. I see
k and
t as distinct glyph types, just like
r and
s, or
o and
a. And in fact I have reason to believe that the Scribe often confused
k and
d, but hardly ever
t and
d -- because of the extra loop.
On the other hand, I suppose that there are a good number of
t that were meant to be
k , or vice-versa. If youy have ever tried to transcribe the VMS, you must know how easy it is to make that mistake, even if you firmly believe that they are distinct glyph types.
Quote:For all those assumptions there is no solid proof
Indeed, but there is no solid proof proof that
r and
CTh are distinct glyphs, either...
Quote:and nearly no observation underlying
I
do have observations that led me to believe in the frequent mis-reading of
in as
r, and of
d as
k or vice-versa. But I suppose you would dismiss them as mere coincidences...
Quote:yes, somebody can make some mistakes, but A still isn't V then...
Swapping one character for another because of similar shapes is a rare occurrence if the scribe understands the language he is copying. The Scribe will hardly ever copy "AQUATICUM" as "AOUATICUM". Even if the draft says "AOUATICUM", the scribe will surely write "AQUATICUM". The errors in that case will tend to be either due to simple distraction (like "AQUATCUM"), hence random, or more related to morphology or pronunciation ("ACUATICUM", "AQUOTICUM", etc.)
But things are very different if the Scribe does not understand the language. A scribe who does not understand Greek may often swap "ζ" by "ξ", "ν" by "υ", "Θ" by "O", etc. -- even if the result is an unpronounceable word.
Quote:"quillos" at a heavy rate
The rate of errors can be very high. The diary of the Lewis and Clark expedition is full of mis-spellings; especially for names of tribes and places, but even for common words like "breakfast" or "seat":
Quote:August the 31st 1804 after the Indians got their Brackfast the Chiefs met and arranged themselves in a row with elligent pipes of peace all pointing to our Seets, we Came foward and took our Seets, the Great Cheif The Shake han rose and Spoke to Some length aproving what we had Said and promissing to pursue the advice.
Mar to ree 2d Cheif (White Crain) rose and made a Short Speech and refured to the great Chief
Par nar ne Ar par be 3rd Cheif rose and made a Short Speech
Ar ca we char the (the half man) 3d Chief rose & spoke at Some length. Much to the purpose.
The othe Cheif Said but little one of the warreirs Spoke after all was don & promissed to Support the Chiefs, the promisd to go and See their Great father in the Spring with Mr. Dorion, and to do all things we had advised them to do. and all Concluded by telling the distresses of ther nation by not haveing traders, & wished us to take pity on them, the wanted Powder Ball & a little milk
last night the Indians Danced untill late in their dances we gave them Som knives Tobaco & belts & tape & Binding with which they wer Satisfied
And yet the authors were US Army officers who went through a military academy, and of course knew the language...
All the best, --stolfi