Re: VMs: Babelfish translation [plus question for Dana]

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling wrote:
> 
> BTW: one problem with pairifying the VMs is <o>, as it is such an
> incredibly multi-function glyph:-
> * in <ol> and <or>, it looks like the left-hand half of a verbose cipher pair
> * in <qo>, <cho> and <eo>, it looks like the right-hand half of a verbose
> cipher pair
> * at the start of a word (typically before a gallows), it looks like a
> Greek omicron ("the")

Nick Pelling also wrote:
> 
> A reasonable (yet fairly minimal) extended glyph set might well be based
> around:-
>          ch
>          sh
>          ee
>          cfh
>          ckh
>          cph
>          cth
> 
> Similarly, many read the <in>/<iin>/<iiin> strokes as a single glyph, so
> these too might well be fruitfully considered as single glyphs.
> 
> IMO, there's also a strong case for treating these pairs as if they formed
> individual letters:-
>          qo
>          ol
>          al
>          dy
>          eo
>          or
>          ar

	I immediately think of the two pre-Stolfi word
paradigms:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiltman:

ok-, of-              -an, -ain, -aiin, -aiiin
ot-, op-              -ar, -air, -aiir, -aiiir
qok-, qof-            -al, -ail, -aiil, -aiiil
qot-, qop-            -or
ch-                    -ol
sh-                    -ey, -eey, -eeey
d-                    -edy, -eedy, -eeedy
s-
---------------------------------------------------------------
24th of Firth: 

          s                    dy
          qo                   dal
          qok                  daiin
          qot                  al
          d                    am
          yk                   aiin
          yt                   ain
          k                    ar
          o                    ey
          ok                   eey
          ot                   eol
          t                    ol
          cth                  oiin
          ch                   or
          chk                  chy
          cht                  chey
          chcth                cho
          chcph                chol
          chckh                chor
          cph                  shy
          ckh                  y {(maybe)}
          sh
          sho
-------------------------------------------------------------

	In a sample of maybe 20 herbal pages, words 
following Firth's paradigm accounted for 75-80% of the 
characters (spaces included).  

	So Nick's al, ar, ol, or, and dy are terminators 
in the two paradigms.    His 
remark that "o" starts a word, followed by a gallows,
shows 
partly in Firth and even more in Tiltman.  qo of course 
is an initiator. 

	His remark that "cho" is a unit shows in both
paradigms, in that ch- is an initiator and -o*
terminates 
many words.  In Firth -cho , -chol , and -chor are 
themselves terminators.  

	"eo" appears only in Firth as the 
terminator -eol .

	FWIW.  I like these two paradigms for their
simplicity.  
Firth said his paradigm accounted for ~250 Voynichese
words out of 
a possible ~420 it could generate.  

	Does anyone see any further conclusions?  I'm
thinking.

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