Re: D! IV

[Big Jim <bigjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:05 AM 2/21/01 -0700, Billy Hutton wrote:
> Wow Jim!
>
> That link is pretty cool.  I have a silly question though.  :)  If the
> alphabet is a visual code, what made you assign the letters you did to our
> "H" and our "T"?

The "h" looks like a Latin lower case h mirrored and laid down, which also 
looks exactly like Arabic He. Maybe that's the origin.
It seems to me the writer was a Semite. Probably Hebrew. Using Arabic 
letters is a signature without revealing his true religious background. The 
T is the group assignment. I was just looking at script fonts.



>  It looks like a better match if you "flip" them.  I can
> "see" the rest of them though.

The H yes... but I believe he was using the Arabic. It's identical.



> Of course, choosing one possibility tends to limit the possibility of all
> other possibilities.

That's very possible..hehehe....



>   I think Derrida said that.  So I'm curious if this
> visual code could be applied to other arabic alphabets,

I took a look at other Arabic scripts. Some Kufic styles have a slightly 
similar flare like the Gallows letters of the Voynich. I couldn't say if 
it's the inspiration for the Gallows letters or not. Just an idea.
http://www.sakkal.com/Arab_Calligraphy_Art6.html



>  especially languages
> with similiar alpahbets like Spanish, French, or who knows what else?

Actually all letters, with a couple of exceptions, have their base in 
pictures. This was the origin of the idea that Egyptian words had double 
meanings. One definition based on what was commonly accepted, and one based 
on the Hieroglyphs.  What I have seen in this is a lot older than Egyptian. 
In fact if it was true of Egyptian, determinatives would never have had to 
be instituted. A true ancient word was itself both word (common 
definition)  and determinative (the meanings of the pictures behind the 
"letters".)  A Hebrew word like AMR, that which references all ideas of 
communication, actually translates, that which is born from the head.



> Decoded voynich "words" may still look encoded if they are of a similiar
> alphabet, but still another language.

This has been a thorn with this group but I accept all blame. I have not as 
yet been able to post my method as the PDF program I have been waiting for 
has not yet arrived. After the word is exposed by this groups "alphabet", 
the language is Hebrew but is actually visually encoded Hebrew. Vowel 
points may or may not be represented at any given time. False vowels may be 
represented. If you look at the voynich dictionary, you will see similar 
words in the list.  These are the same words with a different visual 
encryption. The most obvious are; AIN, AIIN, and AIIIN. These are all the 
same word AIN visually encoded to make you second guess yourself, Hebrew 
for THE EYE. When OIN is used, it is the same word, AIN (we would write 
'AIN and the Latin O is derived from the Hebrew LETTER AIN)  accessing 
another definition of the WORD 'AIN.




> Has this visual approach been applied to non-arabic langugaes?  It would be
> interesting to see how it worked against something Slavic.  Or perhaps
> someone would like to undertake the daunting task of looking for
> similiarities in languages not centered around an alphabet, like Chineese or
> Japanese.

All writing started in pictures. Late languages like Latin used pre 
established picture references if they used the method at all. A lot of 
times meanings were totally reversed. The negative aspect that has been 
attached to the Latin "A", is in total contraction to it's original meaning.
What I see going on with the Voynich has nothing to do with ancient word 
construction. I see what I see because I deal with language on a visual level.
As soon as the PDF program arrives I will start explaining more of what I see.

Regards,
Jim



---------------------------------------------------------------
The End is near....Something plural this way comes.
Have a nice day :-)