RE: VMs: Currier A and B

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> In fact, you might well characterise a typical word ending of the
> type I'm
> describing as typically being placed *inside* a VMS word and
> having the form:-
>
>          (-/ch/sh) + (-/e/ee) + (o)

This page was only on the 89 ending, which clearly demonstrates that certain
word forms are well defined as a1 or b2.  Other word endings follow similar
patterns.  There are many things I could say about this, but I'm working on
something rather definitive which will say most of what I have to say in a
similar page.

Unfortunately my view does not seem to lead to false word breaks, rather
that these are *real* encrypted words.  (with the exception of those pesky
"half spaces").  I guess I'd need to see a page divided as you think it
should be, to get a better feel of what you're getting at.  We may be
looking at similar artifacts and offering different explanations for their
behaviour.

Meanwhile, back to a1/b2 in the herbal section - The 89 page alone
demonstrates vividly that there are major structure differences between
certain words in these pages, leading to the division of them into a1 and
b2.  As Rene points out, these definitions are at best hazy, but as a
starting point they do very nicely.

One of the things I haven't mentioned is that, since the b2 pages don't
start until f26r, we now have a very good subset of a1 in f1r-f25v.
Analyzing this subset reveals yet another split, similar to a1 and b2.  I've
yet to find a good naming system for these, but you'll never guess what they
correlate to, heh heh.  Throw out f1r because of the fact that it was not
written at the same time as the herbal pages, recategorize f48v to the b2
subset, keep a close eye on 24r and 24v, ponder 34r as a hybrid a1/b2, and
then go from there.

a1 has as a minimum two of subsets, while b2 is more than half a1-subsets
and b2.  It's a lot more work than I really wanted to take on right now,
with other things on the plate, but I'm still here and what the hey, I have
to do it if I'm to continue much further. :-)

I did a run last night where I placed definition markers in the database,
had it print out the folios using the subset markers, (example: word in b2
printed as /4o8am/, with defining slashes on both sides of the word).  I
then used Word to accent the contents of anything between the slashes with a
color command, and then globally removed the slashes.  What I wound up with
was a font representation of each folio, line by line, paragraph by
paragraph, highlighted in its proper subsets.  A database simply can't
provide this sort of view, and this view offers some very clear and
penetrating information that you'll never get looking at sets of numbers,
percentages and graphs.  A little more work on statistically defining my
perceived subsets, and I'll be able to offer a view of the herbal pages
never before seen.  Once I get this finished and posted Lucy, you're gonna
have a lot of esplaining to do! :-)  I think you're going to like it.

GC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Nick Pelling
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:32 PM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: Currier A and B
>
>
> Hi GC,
>
> >http://voynich.info/xcrptn/89.pdf
>
> Excellent page, thanks! :-)  For my own current set of ideas, it really
> makes a lot of things clearly visible - for example, I think what you may
> actually be observing here is the structure of word endings (with -dy
> attached) as I think that <dy> mostly functions as a standalone
> word in its
> own right.
>
> What, then, to make of all the -ody words here? This (-o, quite
> apart from
> <qo>) looks like another type of word ending modifier (which the
> encode is
> trying to hide from view by placing in the middle of [fake] VMS
> words), to
> add to the <-e> and <-ee> groups.
>
> In fact, you might well characterise a typical word ending of the
> type I'm
> describing as typically being placed *inside* a VMS word and
> having the form:-
>
>          (-/ch/sh) + (-/e/ee) + (o)
>
> This seems to capture many of the occasions where my general
> pairification
> tends to lead to an otherwise unconnected "o" glyph: note that this is
> independent of following pairs like <oe>, <or> etc.
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

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