Re: VMs: [LONG] Voynich & semiotics (early notes)

["Gabriele Ferri" <gabriele.ferri@xxxxxxxxx>]

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>
A: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Data: martedì 9 settembre 2003 13.32
Oggetto: Re: VMs: [LONG] Voynich & semiotics (early notes)


>Whether they would generate off-spring by laying
>eggs or bearing live descendants was of just
>about zero interest to me.
>
>This is no comment about your explanation,
>obviously.

Good point! ;-)))

>> c) the vms is written in an artificial language or
>> some kind of
>> transcription of a non-european language using ad
>> hoc charaters and syntax.
>
>IMHO these are two very different things.

Yes, you're right of course they are. I realised that I didn't express my
idea very well (pity my poor english, especially when I discuss complex
ideas). In this case I just wanted to underline that:
-If hypotesis A (the VMS is the result of one or more algorithms) is true,
then the result of the decoding process would be a readable text. In this
case, we "just" have got to find the right algorithm, then the process could
be machine-automated.
-If hypotesis B (the VMS needs human interpretation to be decoded, such a
vowel-less text) is true or A and B are both true (the VMS must be decoded
using one or more algorithm and the clear-text obtained is, for example,
vowel-less), then the reader has to make arbitrary decisions in "filling the
gaps" in the text. But, anyhow, these arbitrary decisions are backed up by
the fact that the base-language is known, so, for example, words unknown in
any language can be automatically discarded. I know that it's way more
complex than that, but it's just a model.
-[Now, Rene, I arrive at your point] If hypotesis C is true (the vms is just
a trascription, using its own set of rules, character and conventions, of a
non-european language; or a text written in an artificial language, using ad
hoc rules), or hypotesis A and C are true or even A B and C are true, then
the base language is unknown. Or, in the case of a transcription, the base
language could be known in a completely different writing-form.
- If hypotesis D is true (the vms is glossolalia, independently from the
date of writing), then the semiotic / interpretative approach needed is
completely different. In this case we would be dealing with an extremely
interesting "open work", but a proper translation would be impossible. (see
below)

>The VMs as an object has a meaning. It is a book
>which cannot be read, and looks like a compendium
>of knowledge. In its own time, it could have looked
>like a compendium of very advanced, secret
>knowledge.
>
>I know that you're thinking of the meaning of
>the text contained in the VMs, but, keeping in
>mind the meaning of the object, this may have been
>only secondary.
Exactly! And, I assure you, this is very exciting from a semiotical point of
view. (although I understand that all the cryptologists out there would be
really happy to finally obtain a clear-text) :-)

Hypotesis A B C and D are actually a scale of how much human interpretation
is needed to understand the VMS

cheers
Gabriele


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