Fw: Exciting New Discovery!

["John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh for crying out loud! I did it again. I want a 'reply to VMS list' default
button!
John...

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Bruce Grant" <bgrant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Exciting New Discovery!


> Bruce,
>
> What about the words that have the crossed gallows in the middle of the
> word?
> Are these words, then, those that have 'et' in the spelling? -B-et-t-e-r?
>
> John.
>
> (P.S. - I had hit 'reply to' again (instead of 'reply all') and only sent
my
> last Email to Rene in response to his statement that Currier had already
> noted the non-use of crossed-gallows in line initial position:
"Figures!")
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Grant" <bgrant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <voynich@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Exciting New Discovery!
>
>
> > Yeah, I'd like to suggest a theory:
> >
> > I recently noticed in Cappelli, in Tavola VI. that the 'ch' symbol is
used
> > several times to represent the Latin word 'et'. (It occurs in the middle
> of the
> > page, in a sentence reading "Quam Finem Refutacionem et omnia et singula
> > suprascripta et infrascripta promixit ...")
> >
> > Perhaps a gallows letter indicates the beginning of a clause (which
would
> also
> > explain why so many pages start with one), and the 'ch' wrapped around
the
> > gallows letter is an 'et' connecting it with the previous clause (in the
> same
> > sentence). If each sentence began on a new line, there would then be no
> > line-initial 'wrapped gallows' letters.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> > John Grove wrote:
> >
> > > It's going to be a great day!
> > >
> > > I believe I have just discovered something that hasn't been noted
> before.
> > > The crossed Gallows cth/ckh/cph/cfh are not supposed to be EVER
written
> in
> > > the line initial position (only occurs 3 times in whole manuscript on
> f65v,
> > > f76v, and f82v).
> > >
> > > Secondly, and perhaps more importantly where several others would have
> > > occured - instead of one of those specific Gallows - a Split-G exists!
> Not
> > > all Split-G's can be explained by this usage, although many are still
in
> > > word-initial positions - there are those label ones too.
> > >
> > > Now what does this mean? I don't know - any guesses? I want to fall
back
> on
> > > my 'drifting gallows' line of thinking with a rule that if in line
> initial
> > > position - the Gallows can't be over a ch.
> > >
> > > John.
> >
> >
>