• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet
• Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

• Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  Stefan Wirtz_2 > Yesterday, 04:02 PM

  Voynich texts still spark off discussions about their structure, especially about the length of Vords, the understanding of gaps and possible sentences or chapters.
  At three occasions, Voynichese characters appear as lined-up, but single symbols. We don‘t know the purpose of these line-ups.
  These sources are the second-outer ring of folio 57v, the second leading column of 66r, and the leading column of 76r.
  Whatever the purpose of those lines of singled symbols are, they obviously are used for some stand-alone function here.
  
  
  
  
  
  A bit surprising, "air" appears here between the line of single letters; most people consider this as a combination of up to 3 different Voynichese characters a, i and r,  but we have to face here the fact of "air" being some "atomistic", stand-alone sign. It appears also (very rarely) in the main text.
  
  Therefore, it is set together with the single characters and some combinations of them in this alphabet table:
  
  
  
  Some of the most frequent characters are not used in 57,66, and 76, but can be found at various positions in main text, so we can assume for them "having a life on their own" -- these are framed in blue colour.
  
  Most people think of cFe, cPe, cTe, cKe, ee, eee, ii, iN, ir, iiN, iir also being combined characters = red framed here.
  
  But at least cTe appears stand-alone or in an end position in text (also very rare), so that might be an element with it's own function as well:
  (middle line, mid position)
  
  
  (lowest Vord)
  
  
  At position 9 in the image of "4x17 sequences" is clearly made a difference between f (first 2 sequences) and p (last 2 sequences); this was discussed already, we have to live with the fact that they are not completely identical. But for identification of stand-alone letters this doesn't matter here.
  But I would see the strange < at position 16 just as a bit harsh variant of c  like in the other 3 sequences, not some new combination or symbol.
  
  So, in total the table shows 28 single characters, 7 rather clear combinations and 4 combinations with (maybe optional) an own function.
  Voynichese Alphabet may sum up to 39 letters; even if we take out the 6 rarest symbols, which appear nearly nowhere else in the script anymore, it is still a number or 33 characters available and in (more or less) use.
  
  But can there be even more?
  I did not the variants of "d" here, like 8, D, j or such: those things appear to me like variations of style & scribe, not so much as own symbols.
  
  Here is some kind of "8" party happening:
  
  
  
  Looks like all be done by the same scribe, but he did not care too much for exact writing of "8". I wouldn't enhance an alphabet by these.

• RE: Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  DG97EEB > Yesterday, 06:18 PM

  ... deleted.....

• RE: Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  Mauro > Yesterday, 08:26 PM

  (Yesterday, 04:02 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A bit surprising, "air" appears here between the line of single letters; most people consider this as a combination of up to 3 different Voynichese characters a, i and r,  but we have to face here the fact of "air" being some "atomistic", stand-alone sign. It appears also (very rarely) in the main text.
  
  .....
  
  Most people think of cFe, cPe, cTe, cKe, ee, eee, ii, iN, ir, iiN, iir also being combined characters = red framed here.
  
  ....
  
  But can there be even more?

  
  If 'in', 'iin', 'ir', 'iir', then why not 'im', 'iim', 'ig', 'il', 'iil', 'is', 'iis', 'ik', 'iik' etc.?

• RE: Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  Jorge_Stolfi > Today, 02:58 AM

  (Yesterday, 04:02 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A bit surprising, "air" appears here between the line of single letters; most people consider this as a combination of up to 3 different Voynichese characters a, i and r,  but we have to face here the fact of "air" being some "atomistic", stand-alone sign. It appears also (very rarely) in the main text.

  
  I believe that every ending ir is a rather common error by the Scribe, caused by him mis-reading an in in the Author's sloppy handwriting as r.  (But not every r is such a "quillo"!) 
  
  That would explain why the ending is is quite rare, while ir is quite common and r and s are otherwise similar: because ien, unlike iin, is not a valid ending.
  
  

  Quote:Most people think of CFe, CPe, CTe, CKe, ee, eee, ii, in, ir, iin, iir also being combined characters [...] But can there be even more?

  
  In my view a single e is a modifier that can follow k, t, Ch, Sh, ee, CTh, CKh, CPh, and CFh (but not p and f or any other letter), turning those nine letters into nine additional ones: ke, te, Che, She, eee, CThe, etc. 
  
  On the other hand I believe that p and f are not distinct letters, but only ornate versions of other letters or digraphs -- sort of like our capital letters, but used in rather different ways.
  
  And ee may be just a lazy version of Ch with the ligature omitted (like a Latin "i" missing the dot).
  
  And CTHh, CKHh etc are CThe, CKhe etc with an accidentally over extended ligature line.
  
  And m is a Scribal abbreviation for iin (and maybe for in too). 
  
  And b, u, g are not distinct letters, but merely malformed versions of other letters.  Ditto for Ih,IKh etc, and any other i that is not in an in or iin or iiin.
  
  And q or qo is not a letter, but a symbol that means "and" -- like English "&" but with the grammar of Arabic "wa-".
  
  So my proposal for the Voynichese alphabet is
  
  a   o   y    d   l   r   s 
  Ch   Sh   ee   Che   She   eee
  k   t   ke   te
  CKh   CTh   CThe   CKHe
  n   in   iin   iiin(?)
  
  Those in the last row can occur only at the end of a word.  There are many other restrictions but not worth mentioning now.
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  Stefan Wirtz_2 > 7 hours ago

  (Yesterday, 08:26 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If 'in', 'iin', 'ir', 'iir', then why not 'im', 'iim', 'ig', 'il', 'iil', 'is', 'iis', 'ik', 'iik' etc.?

  
  Maybe, why not?
  
  But the main differences are:
  - in and iin appear rather often in VMS; mostly, but not exclusively in an end position. The are following very often some "a", but there are some exceptions also. They never show up stand-alone. 
  n is functioning as stand-alone letter in columns and main text. 
  So I see in and iin as combined, but as new characters with an own "value", calling it element of the basic VMS alphabet.
  
  - nearly the same for "ii"
  
  - ir and iir are technically combinations of r with i and ii. I wouldn't have considered these as atoms or elements, but since air has a fixed stand-alone meaning and use, I took these as values of their own also into the table; they appear also in main texts sometimes without an "a", but remain as redframed second-class letters in my table.
  
  - why not im, iim, ig, il, iil, is, iis, ik, iik ? 
  I understand those strings as combinations; did not see a stand-alone usage yet, and not a very high rate of use within text. (may call those 'molecules', if you want to). Finally, all Vords are combinations of basic alphabetical elements: I tried to concentrate and condense those latter ones here.

• RE: Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  Stefan Wirtz_2 > 7 hours ago

  (Today, 02:58 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I believe that every ending ir is a rather common error by the Scribe, caused by him mis-reading an in in the Author's sloppy handwriting as r.  (But not every r is such a "quillo"!)

  
  No, I don't do that.
  Claiming that one of the most common combinations is just a steady error while trying to write an even more common combination?
  That would be an assumption I can't follow.
  
  [..]
  

  (Today, 02:58 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my view a single e is a modifier that can follow k, t, Ch, Sh, ee, CTh, CKh, CPh, and CFh (but not p and f or any other letter), turning those nine letters into nine additional ones: ke, te, Che, She, eee, CThe, etc. [..]

  
  I don't have a concept of "modifiers" in an alphabet at this moment. Could be possible, or just not.
  In my view, e is following c  to --> ce, it also sets ee and eee. At least eee will have another meaning than just 3x e, because we do not really have a lingual understanding for 3times of a single letter.
  e (or ce!) surrounds the gallows, and I think something like iFi ist just an unprecise writing of eFe, so I took such combinations not into table.
  But nothing more for me.
  
  

  (Today, 02:58 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the other hand I believe that p and f are not distinct letters, but only ornate versions of other letters or digraphs -- sort of like our capital letters, but used in rather different ways. [..]

  
  The 4x17 sequence where only p and f are disturbing the perfect order, is tempting to dump the difference between both gallows. I wouldn't do that, both versions occur many times in texts, even together within same lines. Such effort to write 1 character in different ways...?
  
  [..]
  

  (Today, 02:58 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And m is a Scribal abbreviation for iin (and maybe for in too).

  
  Not the slightest hint anywhere for that understanding, isn't it?
  
  

  (Today, 02:58 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And b, u, g are not distinct letters, but merely malformed versions of other letters.  Ditto for Ih,IKh etc, and any other i that is not in an in or iin or iiin.

  
  Would agree for b being just an n, and u being one of the very few real typos in text.
  But scribe(s) made too much effort to distinct between m and g, like here:
  
  
  
  Completely different breed of letters, from one and the same scribe.
  We see g quite often, and clearly expressed by writing -- that is nothing like m at all...

• RE: Atoms and elements of the Voynichese alphabet

  dashstofsk > 4 hours ago

  (7 hours ago)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.is, iis, ik, iik

  
  These character strings go against the curve line system rules that seem to govern many words in the manuscript. e stroke characters seem to like to follow other e stroke characters. The same with  i stroke characters.
  
  Some links on this:
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
• Next Oldest Next Newest