VMs: RE: Folio 39r

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gabriel wrote:
> Very nice rendering of f39r.
> I think that the first word is <tedochshd> instead of
> <tedchshd> ; a small <o>
> is missing.
> I read the third word as <chdain>. Note that the first
> <ch> or <a> is quite
> different from the last <a>.
> I haven't checked the other paragraphs.


Quite so, and thank you.  My color coding is this - black is the
first reading, typed in directly from a wireless keyboard, prone
to transmission errors. Lavender is the second reading, read
carefully line by line and corrected.  Gold is the third reading,
made no less than one week from the second reading, to avoid any
conditional influences I may have picked up from any given page,
and to provide a fresh eye to my previous interpretation.  This
presentation is a black - first stage - reading, and the
typographical errors are a clear indication of why I need more
than one stage of transcription.  One final stage beyond this is
to re-read the entire manuscript in light of discussion and any
new discoveries.  Platinum transcription, the color matching the
description.

I offer these two images of f39r against my transcription -
http://voynich.info/vgbt/39r-1.jpg ,
http://voynich.info/vgbt/39r-2.jpg as the first stage of my
control set in transcription, a juxtaposition of transcription
against extracted text image.  The completed database will contain
not only these line references, but word and glyph references as
well.

You're one of the few that have always had no doubt I am extremely
serious about getting to the bottom of these formations, and I
welcome any discussion of them... to a degree.  I would argue that
the sheer number of occurrences of the primary 23 glyphs preclude
ANY reasonable assessment of the Voynich as a stroke-based
compilation, and that my further identification of glyph sets
speaks volumes in the direction of a calculated and contrived
'alphabet' or glyph-bet, for lack of a better phrase.

These ideas are not 'etched' in gold or platinum, rather opening
volleys in a discussion of paramount importance - what is or is
not a unit of transmission?  I base my assumptions on the number
of times a certain formation occurs, and how well it conforms to
the instructional set.  Detailed reasons why this set of
assumptions requires modification - short of "we can't know" - is
appreciated.

GC