Re: VMs: Theory? What theory?: index?

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

matt welnicki welnicki@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 04 August 2003 13:13
Subject: Re: VMs: Theory? What theory?: index?


> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 04:26:42 +0100, "Jeff" wrote:
>
> > The VMS is
> > sorted either partially  fully in an alphabetically
> > order. That is my
> > belief. Take it or leave . And no I have no proof to
> > supply YET.
>
> Jeff,
>
> At one point early on I considered whether some of the
> pages were indexes - like 49v albeit not at the end of
> the Manuscript or a specific section.  Even recently
> I've thought about whether the pages were organized or
> once organized in an order.  I forget the reference but
> I had done some research and a couple of authorities
> said that indexing was inconsistent througout the
> 1400-1600 range with different methods used.  One
> source said the herbals were commonly indexed in the
> mid-1500s.  I understand that indexing might not be as
> important if it is a work in progress for the use of
> one physician.  Specifically, I tried, briefly, to see
> any obvious or hidden page numbers/indicators that
> could correspond to an index, it might warrant some
> follow-up.
>
> If organized alphabetically, would it be alphabetically
> in the plain-text language/alphabet or the cipher-text
> language/alphabet.
>
> Matt
> ______________________________________________________________________

Oddly enough I believe both might be sorted alphabetically. Firstly the
plain text and then the ciphertext. Markers are then added as an aid to
decipherment. Thus on my earlier cylinder post we see the barring effect of
the glyphs that constitute the markers. I believe this double sorting would
make a very strong cipher, which is what we have :-)

Jeff


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