|
The rantings of a madman follow. If it's unstructured, I can excuse myself:
I've been listening to Chris Morris' Blue Jam...
I would tend to imagine what I would call a 'compound symbol' in the
Voynich language - sets of symbols which always exist together - to be a
discrete component of the language; anything which can appear separately would
not be, as a rule of thumb (the only character I can think of in the modern
"Roman" alphabet that resembles to a significant degree two other characters
together is æ, and even that tends to become 'ae'. The number of
independent glyphs to my mind would indicate which sort of alphabet we are
dealing with. Consider that our alphabet has somewhere between 50 and 60 symbols
including capitals, varying with whether we tend to use æ, Ø, ß,
and so on, or not. There are, unfortunately and coincidentally about the same
number of rough sounds in the English language, but the International Phonetic
Alphabet, being much more comprehensive, has many more characters. In my
judgement, for a document of this type (ie. probably a herbal) there would be
far many more characters in a pictographic system.
Given that there exist such things as Mike Roe's generic word, and tables
of words which imply a limited number of prefixes and suffixes, and given the
unusually short word length, is it not possible that words in fact represent
relational ideas rather than literal words, or shorthand, (the latter of which
would not have so much redundancy, the former of which would be far easier to
decrypt) and the prefixes act as predicates, the suffixes as arguments? This
would also explain the apparent lack of sentence structure.
This idea of course would also work for the 'hoax' theory. It is possible
that were the VMS a hoax, the author may have invented a mechanical system to
create wording, avoiding randomness, which would make it obviously a hoax.
MDP
|