VMs: Re: Qoteedy nine

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

	I like the idea of the VMs as a shorthand system, 
because of the *fluency*, the easy flow of the writing
in the VMs.  I find it hard to believe that one would
see this with any artificial language, even if the 
VMs is a "fair copy" of a draft.

GC wrote:
> 
> Dennis and Jacque wrote:

> > 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.

	 The overall character h2 of the VMs is low,
but Rene has shown, the entropy pattern within words
indicate a meaning 
content similar to natural languages.  

> 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.

	That makes sense.  I have a sample of Trandechino's
cipher scripts in my Historical Precedents document:

http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/voynich/index.html

> 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 like the idea, but it steers perilously near
Newbold...
We'll have to be careful.

Dennis
---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses and found to be virus free]