VMs: RE: Folio 39r

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:
>
> A few more to add to the list:
>
> line 1, word 1: is the looped <ch> the tear-drop form?
> line 4, word 5: gallows is incorrect
> line 6: should the final two gallows be a different
> glyph entirely?
> line 7, word 7: word should begin "8"
> line 10, word 1: o should be a
> line 10, word 6: oo should be oe
> line 11, word 5: the last two letters look more like
> the familiar ar
> line 13, word 7: loop missing above first glyph
>
> Let me know if I can make corrections more directly. :-)
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....


Nick, we're hopefully working on the "more directly" part!

About half of this list is something open to question, the reason
I'm trying to bring about this discussion...

The one thing I need to focus on as an opener is the difference
between and {o} and an {a}.  I've imaged my entire copyflo(for
personal research purposes), and currently possess ALL commonly
known images of Voynich pages publicly available, as well as a few
that are not publicly available, purchased from Beinecke and
non-releasable under penalty of prolonged castration, followed by
the relief of speedy vivisection, as I read the privacy policy.
:-*

In doing this I've taken several hundred hours cutting and pasting
glyphs in columns to compare, with the idea that this would lead
me to some determination of the author's intention.  The {o} and
the {a} are the most problematic of the glyphs in question, but
I've come up with a set of rules that I abide by in determining
their meaning by viewing these glyphs at 30x and higher
resolution.

The {o} is composed of two strokes, which may be called "c" and
"backward c".  The {a} is composed of two strokes, which may be
termed "c" and "\" in ascii.  The "\" stroke may either have a
straight terminal at the bottom, or end with a calligraphic
upswirl, but the stroke is based on a diagonal line in its
orientation.  The construction of the {o} is where the
indeterminate values come into play.  This is composed of two
semi-circular strokes, but when written they do not always line up
to make an {o}, just as the strokes of the {8} do not always line
up, and just as the two strokes of the {9} are sometimes
separated.  This may be a function of the grain of the writing
surface, something out of the control of the author.

There are many occasions where the pen-stroke is circular, curving
inward, but does not line up with the first "c" stroke, and
because of that it tends to leave a tail.  These I try to qualify
as an {o} on these grounds.  In order to qualify as an {a}, the
terminal stroke needs to be functionally a diagonal line, and at
the least have little or no curviture.  This calligraphic rule
does not always answer to the poor images we possess, but in the
majority of cases it provides a sound distinction between on form
and the other.

GC