VMs: RE: Qoteedy nine

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dennis and Jacque wrote:

> 10/09/02 16:22:39, Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx> puzzles:
>
> >	I had thought that the origins of the VMs script had
> >been settled:
>
> >1)  Latin abbreviations and early Arabic numerals, from
> >D'Imperio
> >as you noted;
>
> >2)  Late 15th Renaissance cipher symbols, like those
> >listed
> >by Trandechino; and
>
> >3)  The gallows embellishments seen in a few medieval
> >Ms.
>
> >	I must confess that I haven't followed the shorthand
> >discussion.  What does shorthand add/detract from my
> >list above?
>
> Let us grant that it _is_ a shorthand system. A shorthand
> system is a compression algorithm. The entropy of a compressed
> message is much greater than that of the same message,
> uncompressed (take a look at a zip file; if you like,
> uu-encode it and have MONKEY calculate its entropy).
>
> The entropy of the VMs is very low. Therefore, if it is
> a shorthand, the shorthand is hidden inside a low-entropy
> text--perhaps glossolalia.
>
> So then, it is a steganographic cipher. Therefore,
> it is undecipherable -- think of the "Bible Code",
> think of Newbolde.


Item 2 presupposes that these cipher symbols were unique
creations, and not borrowings from something already in existence.
I haven't seen anything that sources these symbols, but I wouldn't
be surprised to find that some are indeed unique, and others
simple borrowings.

The first qualifiable addition to the discussion, in my
estimation, is the sourcing of some symbols as precursors to the
earliest published shorthand systems, especially the rather
complicated forms that appear on 57v.  Actually, the first such
symbol appears on 1r, and every symbol so far (first 100 pages)
that is not some variation of the standard script, is identifiable
in early shorthand publications.

The second qualifiable addition to the discussion is my theory
that the variants of several glyph forms are predictable variants,
all falling within a set of rules, similar to those found in early
shorthand systems.  If this is true, it is an indication that the
VMS glyphs carry more than simple character information, that an
"instruction set" rules the formation of certain glyphs.  The
meaning of the "instruction" is yet to be determined.

I have made absolutely *no claim* that the VMS is written in
shorthand, only that it is my belief, based on new evidence, that
the glyphset is taken almost exclusively from early shorthand
symbols, and that it may contain a form of "coordinate based"
instruction set similar to those used in early shorthand.  I
seriously doubt the VMS is written in shorthand, but understanding
something about the development of the glyphset can be of great
use in making other determinations.

GC