Re: Exciting New Discovery!

[Bruce Grant <bgrant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Even if the _ch_ character represents "and", it might not represent the letters
"e t" if the underlying language isn't Latin. After all, we use the symbol "&"
(which was just a cursive form of the Latin "et") to represent the English word
"and". Maybe in Voynichese the word for "and" is some very frequent letter or
string of letters which is also used in other places (like "e" in Italian.).

Another possibility is that the word breaks are not really word breaks, but gaps
where one letter cannot connect to the following one, as in Arabic. (Not an
original idea, I know.) Perhaps the _ch_ in the "middle" of a "word" is actually
the start of a new word/clause.

Bruce

John Grove wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >