RE: VMs: Re: word length counts

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene wrote:

>
> It depends on what you're counting. If, like
> in the VMs, you're counting shapes (glyphs) then
> it doesn't matter which one doubles for which other
> ones. In the VMs we wouldn't even know.

That, my friend, is a defeatist attitude.  We CAN, and WILL know the answer
to this question.  We have all these marvelous powers of deduction bestowed
on us, and even though their use puts us out on a limb sometimes, it's a
shame to let them lie dormant and unexercised - it's simply not good for
their health!  It's not always the answer you receive, but the question you
ask, that gives the answer meaning.  I didn't ask "what is the general
ranking of VMS glyphs in the first 6 quires?".  I asked, "What are the most
common glyphs that exist in these quires without obvious modification?".  I
got three answers - there are 21 glyphs that fit this bill, they also happen
to be the top 21 occurring glyphs in these quires, and there is a
statistical numerical break between this set and the "modified" glyphs that
fall below this line.  That becomes the "standard set", and as a cipher
manuscript the standard set should be directly related to the length of the
alphabet in use.

> I wouldn't deduce too much from the alphabet size.
> It's in the right ballpark.
> An illiterate person might well decide to use not
> more than 20 characters of the alphabet, by
> using some basic substitutions. Take modern Greek,
> which has a 24-character alphabet. Writing it
> phonetically, it can be reduced quite a lot.

The length of the encoding alphabet when cipher is suspected is very
important in my view, and trying to ascertain this number is one of the
first steps in any solution.  (Damn, I'm back to baby steps again??  When am
I going to get anywhere? :-)  Alphabets of 20 and 21 in cipher examples was
not an uncommon thing, and these examples were not put forward by
illiterates.  I did mention John Cheke in an earlier post (as an address to
your second point), who was a powerful advocate of phonetically written
English.  At a time when people spelled things just about any way they
wanted, this can be considered an early attempt at spelling standardization
on his part, but because he could have been an influence on the author, I
keep in mind that this idea was out there and being served up almost weekly
from the campus lectern.

The following are some of my observations/deductions, and as such you
certainly don't have to agree with them - I'm simply placing them here so
you can get an idea my angle of approach, right or wrong.  It's so true that
while we all speak English, too few of us speak the same language.

I'm not an advocate of mixing herbal statistics with the other quires, and
to me it's a good idea to look at both Herbal-A and Herbal-B separately as
well.  I think it wise to know where they differ before considering how much
they are alike.  Nevertheless, one of the things that is common in both
Herbal-A and Herbal-B is that they both share the same "standard" glyph set,
which is a set of 21 very common glyphs.  The glyphs beyond this set fall
into two groups - "variants" and "shorthand".  An example of a variant would
be an "a" with a tail, or an "m" without a tail, or weird-shaped gallows
combinations.

A "shorthand" glyph is one that has no obvious visual connection to any of
the standard VMS glyphs - I call these "shorthand" because they can all be
found in early English books on shorthand.  (The "walking picnic table" is a
shorthand glyph.)

"Variants" primarily fall into two groups - Toads and Mutants.  (hey,
they're my sets, I get to name them!)  I should probably call them
"calligraphic" and "transmuted".  Calligraphic variants are those such as
the "a" with a tail or the "m" without a tail, or the "9" with a straight
tail,   probably whimsical (or hurried) versions of the standard set, and
therefore properly belonging to standard set statistics.  The transmuted
variants are standard set glyphs either altered dramatically or altered to a
higher form by addition of elements to a point that they are readily
recognizable as different from the standard set.

So why would I try and make these distinctions?  Sniffing glue...and it's
Tuesday, that's why.  Actually, like one other on the list, I have an
extensive collection of artificial alphabets, and the thing I've noticed
over and over is the human tendency to create variations on a simple pattern
or structure when creating something from scratch.  Someone chooses 5 or 6
elements and attaches them together in different ways, etc.  One of Porta's
pages has an alphabet tableau with different boxy figures and such, and one
is nothing more than a systematic variation of the next.  Quite simply, we
humans abhor chaos, and are drawn to pattern like a moth to the flame. (Does
this explain why we stare at the VMS for hours on end?...)

My focus is on the mutated variants, asking the question of whether they
exhibit systematic  variation, and if so, is this akin to other artificial
alphabets?  The answer to that question is overwhelming a positive one.
>From there I go down a long list of questions, trying to find answers.  Was
the scheme devised before the author began to write, or was it modified
during the process?  You may say I can't KNOW, but I say I can certainly
DEDUCE from the evidence enough information to formulate a very positive and
interactive theory by simply asking specific and appropriate questions.  The
glyphs will not be able to tell me who wrote the book, because each glyph
does not know.  But by these glyphs individually and enmasse, questions I
expect they do know the answers to, I might learn enough to formulate
questions to the words and paragraphs which they in turn are expected to
know the answers to.

In regard to the shorthand glyphs, a few glyphs show up in the "early"
pages, but these are also glyphs known to exist in other forms of shorthand
besides English, such as old Latin abbreviations, etc.  About the time we
see the first "walking picnic table", all hell starts to break loose in
regard to shorthand glyphs, and many of these are continued throughout the
remainder of the manuscript.  It's as if the author took a course on
shorthand during his writing of the manuscript, and the transition marks his
various stages of proficiency in the subject.  Make of that what you will,
but it does say that the "early" herbal pages were written at a different
time than the "later" pages, and most probably are indeed the earlier work,
since the inclusion and use of these glyphs progresses forward, not
backward.  It is also likely that additional glyphs in the later sections
were an afterthought or product of increased learning, and not something
devised as a system before the author began to write the manuscript.  This
isn't CERTAIN, of course, but one can devise questions to ask these glyphs
that can add to our level of certainty.

This "suddenly progressive" nature of the VMS text opens the possibility
that the VMS may have existed as a mere "working herbal" for quite some time
before the later sections were added.  A "working herbal" in this context is
a notebook carried by a physician or apothecary in which he recorded
personal observations and recipes.  Several examples exist to demonstrate
that this was a common enough practice to consider the VMS as a "working
herbal", though none of these have been found to have been written in
cipher.  They were however, a very personal work, and cipher is one method
of keeping things "personal".

Among mutated variants we soon discover that mutants of similar standard set
glyphs exhibit similar mutations, which draws one's attention to the
mutations themselves, to see if they can be classified in sets of "notae" or
"notatae".  Right about now I wish I had been writing this reply in PDF, so
I could visually demonstrate what I'm pointing to.  Suffice it to say that
there are signs of a specific stylized notation applied as alteration to the
standard set.  This application is systematic, which implies purposeful, and
therefore presumably meaningful.

There are many more questions to ask and seek answers to in regard to the
construction of the VMS glyph set, and only a proper record of all variants
can begin to answer these questions.  Even though I still lack a complete
record of variants, I have enough to support some of my earlier ideas on VMS
glyph construction and the purpose served by these mutated variants.

As Nick has commented, "Much like GC, it may well be that I have it "solved"
but not "cracked".  With full respect for my trusted colleague and most
worthy competition, he's got it backward.  I have "cracked" portions, but I
certainly don't have the entire cipher "solved".  So much wasted time on
poor imagery, which leads to lossy transcription, and then there's that
whole "accepted transcription convention" thing to deal with.  I've always
thought outside the box, but with the current VMS conventions, every time I
break out of a box, I find I've broken free into yet another box.  I finally
decided to go back to basics, spend the time it takes to develop a study
that starts from square one, building no boxes along the way, and once and
for all determine why every time I encounter a mutant my decipherment turns
into toad stool.  It appears I'll be discovering a few more things as this
progresses.

GC

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