re: EVA Transcription

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have tried to translate some of the EVA transcription into my "theory" of
what is a character, and it presents enough difficulties that I must
manually go back and recheck every character.  Not that much of a
difficulty, as I was only trying to check the EVA transcription against my
own.

My primary point being in the communication of the script however, and what
it must look like another three or four years down the road, as new students
pick up on it.  If they were to discuss 8am instead of daiin, or 4oHcc89
instead of Qoteedy, there would be a visualization attached to the
conversation, and much of the confusion would be dropped.

A second and third point rather quickly.  2- fonts are nice for
visualization, but when that font is composed of strokes instead of units,
the problem hasn't gone away for the counting and exercising of theories.

3- if you haven't established some idea of what a unit of text is in the
first place, you haven't progressed far enough to come up with a workable
theory.

Just my opinion.

GC


GC wrote:
> - the task of mathematically reconstructing the proper character to create
> the "most probable" alphabetic reconstruction of the Voynich. If you had,
I
> wouldn't have to suffer "daiin" for what is obviously nothing more than
"am"
> in proper Voynich script.
The beauty of a computer-readable transcription is that you can
re-transcribe it
to suit your own theory of the VM, for example, to do the type of
calculation
you describe above.
Until _somebody's_ theory starts to produce some plausible results, however,
it
seems dangerous to rule out one approach as less "proper" than another..
(One man's opinion)
Bruce