RE: VMs: Finding_02

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> The EVA string length has no significance in my mind.
> I'm simply looking at
> the structure of a set of (perhaps morphologically
> related) shapes and
> wondering (in no particular order):-
> - "what function could they perform?"
> - "why were they necessary?"
> - "what could they mean?"

I don't want to be misunderstood on this topic, and I certainly
don't want to misunderstand what you are saying.  It's simply that
when <dain daiin> is mentioned in context with roman numerals, the
precise nature of the theory of these forms against roman numerals
needs to be addressed.

I don't think my view here takes anything away from your theory,
I'm just trying to clarify how you interpret this particular
glyphset.  My interpretation of <n in iin iiin> each as single
glyphs still doesn't preclude roman numeral theory.  As you know,
much of my research shows that there are four forms to each major
glyph, and this takes nothing away from roman numeral theory.

Whee we would differ would be if you said you actually counted
each stroke in these forms.  Then I'd have to ask why you don't
write <a? as <ei> or <d> as two, or even three strokes?  (8) is
written with two strokes, (a) is written with two strokes, and (n)
is written with two strokes.  So why is (8an) recorded <dain> with
<da> as individual giyphs, but (n) is expanded to <in>?  What
rules make this so?  This has major implications on how we think
about, and ultimately interpret, these glyphs.  This is certainly
not an argument you and I would normally enter into, but when you
connect these strings with roman numerals, I and more than a bit
curious as to your exact meaning.

this of course has direct bearing on your three questions above.
What function could they perform?  If (am an) are each two glyphs,
then their function *must* be similar to the funtion of other
pairs in the VMS script, at beginning, middle and end of words.
If however, (8oe) is three glyphs long while (8am) is actually
<daiin> and five glyphs long, no certain relationship could exist.

The other two questions are certainly wrapped up in answering the
first.  Why were they necessary?  If indeed we're looking at
two-glyph sets, they are an artifact of the underlying cipher.
What could they mean?  They are most probably cipher substitutions
for *real* letters in a western language, so while each in itself
has very little meaning, the whole makes up words, sentences,
paragraphs, and eventually an entire book that reflects the
thoughts and learning of the original author.  If this is not
true, we're all wasting our time.

GC


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list