[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
VMs: More code/cipher thoughts...
Hi everyone,
For several months I've seen much of the VMS as pairs of glyphs apparently
functioning as a single letter. For example (in EVA), here are the pairs I
used to think might code for the 12 astrological signs, but which I now
suspect are simply letters:-
o+gallows: of ok ot op
o+other: od ol or os
others: ar as dy qo
I also now see many of GC's more complex glyphs (whether ligatured or not)
as concealed Roman numerals, specifically with EVA <c>'s near gallows as
Roman "C"'s:-
EVA <ccckh> --> <c.c.cfh> --> CCLX = 260
One objection to the whole "ornate Roman numerals" theory is that the
stroke groups that appear in the VMS often don't appear to make complete
sense when read strictly according to the rules of Roman numeral formation.
This is true!
However, Luis Velez very kindly copied this text from D'Imperio, which
should help to explain my thinking:-
D'imperio: "A.W. Exell, in his letter to Tiltman, August 1957,
refers to a theory (not further specified) that early Arabic
numerals were built on from one, two, three, four or more
strokes in a similar Oriental manner; he suggests a sketchy
and incomplete correspondence between Voynich symbols
and conventional numerals along these lines.No one has, to
my knowledge, worked out a "stroke" theory of this kind in
sufficient detail to test it out as a hypothesis" (p.24)
Quoting Tiltman (1975) when speaking of Brumbaugh: "He
claims that all the symbols in the script are really digits in
variant forms and that the key is a box providing single digit
substitution for letters... i.e., each digit represents two or
three letters...All this is so ambiguous that it can only be
justified by the production of a great deal of evidence, but
he supplies hardly any evidence at all and I remain
unconvinced... Brumbaugh is not alone in assuming the
symbols to be numbers in various forms.This has been
suggested several times." (p. 38)
"They [Arabic numerals] are often found intermingled in
bizarre ways with Roman numerals: e.g. "1V0jj" for
"1502"; "MoCCCCo50" for "1450"; and "M.CCCC.8ii" for
"1482". In the early and transitional phases of their
adoption, the numerals or "ciphers" were regarded as
incomprehensible, mysterious, strange and well suited
for use as cryptic symbols in secret writing systems." (p.64)
Put simply: Arabic numbers were introduced many times into Europe, but were
taken up most enthusiastically by merchants in Italy during the 14th
Century, before gradually percolating into other fields of activities
during the 15th Century.
If you accept my placing/dating of Milan/1450-1460, both Roman numerals and
Arabic numerals were in common use, though I doubt that Arabic numbers
would have been considered "incomprehensible" then. For example, in the
Milanese cipher ledger, dates of incoming ciphers were written down in
Roman numerals up to the late 1470s (IIRC), but in Arabic numerals after that.
As I also think that the gallows characters are a combination of
steganography and Cistercian number ciphers, to my eyes this all points (as
it did to Brumbaugh) to a kind of "bizarre" and "intermingled" number
system... ideal for hiding a Florentine number code in plain sight. :-)
Finally: I still suspect that EVA "y" may have a similar function to the
similar-looking Tironian nota - ie, both "cum-/con-" and "-um" - it
certainly appears to be used both at the end and beginning of words, and
not *so* much in the middle. And why not? :-)
BTW: GC pointed out that the VMS has two forms of this glyph (open and
closed loop) - according to "Storia delle scritture veloci", the open form
is Tironian, the closed form derives from Seneca.
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....