VMs: RE: Solid-loop gallows...?

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:
> Extremely interesting would be *instance counts* of each of the
> glyph-combinations: for anyone looking to form
> statistical predictions
> about gallows-as-a-numbering-system, that would be a
> good base camp. :-)
>
> Also: I have to say, though, that seeing all those EVA
> <...ch...> variants
> cutting through the gallows legs brings to mind (well,
> to my mind at least)
> a roll of paper drawn in various ways.

My personal view on this is that each of the components is a
legitimate Latin abbreviation, and what we're seeing here is a
glyph set based on combinations of these abbreviations.  Whether
they actually represent individual concepts or simply 'glyphs
designed on a theme' is open to interpretation.  Several of
Porta's alphabets are also 'variations on a theme'.

> Back when I began, I could only see the VMS as a kind
> of overwhelming
> "glyph soup"... and then as a coherent set of
> glyph-pairs... and then as a
> strange number code with a few extra characters. Now I
> just see a
> continuous blur: Guess I must have missed out the
> sets-of-four stage by
> mistake. :-)

by 'sets of four' I refer to the variations on any given theme.
When you transcribe this thing, it becomes evident by the
'half-pauses' between characters that the author wrote the 'words'
not nearly as fluidly as they appear, but composed them in
sections many times.  The number three is predominant between
'half-pauses', suggesting that he placed the glyphs on vellum
three glyphs at a time.  I have no real explanation for this
phenomenon, but I note it as significant.  Was his pen only good
for three glyphs before he had to re-ink?  Just one suggestion.

GC