VMs: Shorthand vs cipher...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dennis,

At 23:18 17/11/2003 -0600, Dennis wrote:
>         It has occurred to me, and probably you, that this
> also describes nomenclators. A nomenclator also
> enciphers words, perhaps syllables, and letters.  The
> difference between a shorthand system and a nomenclator
> is, of course, that a shorthand system is designed to
> be easy to memorize.  However, nomemclators were the
> standard cipher system of the time.   Correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
>         Here's a nomenclator.
>
>                   iin           r          ly
> da                very          s          excellent
> olta              stink           old      fish
> qoko              thistle       a          strong
>
> qokor daiin daiin qokoly oltaly oltaiin dar

According to http://www.etymonline.com/n2etym.htm ...
        nomenclature - 1610, from Fr. nomenclature, from L.
        nomenclatura, from nomenclator "namer," from nomen
        "name" + calare "call out." Nomenclator in Rome was
        the title of a steward whose job was to announce
        visitors, and also of a prompter who helped a stumping
        politician recall names and pet causes of his constituents.

AIUI, nomenclators (in a cipher context) means simply "(sequential) lists 
of names", and - for the overwhelming majority of Quattrocento ciphers (and 
later) - that is precisely what they were. I don't recall any 2d grid-like 
(as you describe) nomenclators from that period, and would suspect the kind 
of Cartesian/geometric/diagrammatic/dimensional thinking implicit in such 
grids to be more typical of the late Renaissance or later... but perhaps 
you know different. :-)

All the same, remember that shorthand had an *extraordinarily* bad press 
circa 1350-1500. Secret writing (of all kinds) was thought to be diabolic - 
that is, the Thought Police of the day believed that if you were hiding 
some thoughts in text, they was probably blasphemous... so, on the balance 
of probability, better to burn you at the stake... just to be sure. :-o

Back then, Quattrocento "secret writing" encompassed cryptography, 
steganography, shorthand, tachygraphy, qabbala, etc... and all of which 
tended to be mastered and used simultaneously by the same (understandably 
edgy and publicity-shy) individuals. So, I'd say that there wasn't actually 
a *great* deal of (cultural) difference between shorthand and cryptography 
back then (shorthands appear to have been largely personal abbreviatory 
systems)... and that's the grey area I suspect the VMs inhabits (ie, an 
enciphered personal shorthand).

IMHO, the cipher is almost certainly simpler than we think (as Steve Ekwall 
never tires of saying) - but until we have a reasonable idea of what the 
plaintext shorthand would look like, we'll stay unable to figure out the 
details of the cipher precisely. I think we'll get there, though. :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


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