VMs: RE: Number encoding as central to the code...?

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:
> ATM, one of the things I'm trying to determine is: what
> would the simplest
> possible solution to the Voynich look like? (As Occam's
> Razor would point
> to that being the most likely.)
>
> Currently, my best candidate is: a number code (where
> the numbers are
> steganographically hidden) plus a stripped-down
> supporting alphabet. That's
> where I'm working my way up from. :-)
>
> Justification: if (like me) you suspect that both EVA
> <ccc> and EVA <iii>
> code for Roman "III", why on earth would such a tiny
> core cipherbet include
> *two* different ways of coding numbers... unless one
> was for a number code
> and the other for actual numbers?
>
> Comments?

Nick, I would like to make comment on the two different ways of
encoding, without drawing any conclusions as to the underlying
meaning ;-)

A very abbreviated version of my theory of glyph construction is
posted, and as I re-transcribe the manuscript I'm building the
detailed version with imaged examples of my theory.  Since my
theory involves groups of four glyphs, this (fortunately or
unfortunately, depending on your pet theory) falls right in with
the theory of numeric construction.  A roman numeral 4 could be
written with IV or IIII, depending on your taste and the time
period, but every time you hit a multiple of 5, another numeral is
used besides 'I'.

(In this and future posts, I'll be using the convention of 'x' for
any other designated transcription than EVA, and Gabriel's <x>
notation for EVA.)  In the VMS, it is my opinion that the majority
of the character sets are built around two strokes, the 'c' stroke
and the EVA <i> stroke.  In the 'c' set, we have c, cc, ccc, and
cccc.  In the <i> set we have <i>, <ii>, <iii>, and <iiii>.  One
other convention is in force, and that is the "tail" at the end of
words.  The <iin> is in my estimation an 'm' with a tail at the
end of a word, as I would write it in English, and in the middle
of a word I would not add a tail to this glyph.  This makes the
<iin> equivalent to an <iii> in the middle of a word.  This glyph
as four distinct "tails".

The 'c', 'cc', 'ccc', and 'cccc' glyphs also have tails at ends of
words many times, and I have identified three tails in my current
transcription.  I'm positive that by the time I reach 25% of the
manuscript, I'll encounter a page that relies heavily on a fourth
tail for this glyph as well.  Meanwhile, the <ch> glyph has four
distinct forms, and interestingly enough, the few times this
glyph-set stands as a lone character, it most often has a "tail"
in the form of the end turned into an 'o' or a '9'.  The same
applies to the "gallows/<ch>" combinations.

It occurs to me that these four units can form the basis of
several types of symbolic numbering systems, since their true
meaning is reliant on the less conspicuous "multiple of 5"
character.  There is even the possibility that the two forms of
"notation" refer to numbers taken from two different pages of a
book, homophonic substitution incorporating more than one document
or page.  The possibilities in this arena are endless.

We two are storing our pizza money in different jars, obviously,
but I do see the attraction of your approach.  I'm putting my
pepperoni money in the "position sensitive homophonic
substitution" jar, but we're obviously seeing the same patterns
from different angles and calculating the same numbers. KUDO's!

GC