RE: VMs: Re: Note for Jeff

["John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	It's so nice to stay on this ride. Round, round, we go.
	What is a glyph... character... letter... whatever?

	Yes, there are a few instances in the VMS where a portion of
letters destroy any theory that the letter exists as an entirety. There
are c's independant of end ligatures that make them look like d's, s's,
b's, ch's, sh's, etc... And there are wierdo's that have two end ligatures
that make them look like 'h' could be stand-alone (cthh, ithh, etc). There
are qo's that have the s/r ligature hanging over them (much like ch with the
same ligature seems to make an sh).

	So, Opinion or not... I think Nick is right < at least in this case 8-) >
ch is a single glyph/character/letter or at least an instance of an object
that is
created by two lesser objects. My paraphrasing of Nick's point is that it is
hard to take an encoding
scheme seriously that doesn't even consider that one stroke of the pen does
not necessarily
make an entire glyph, and that EVA should not be the basis of an encoding
scheme (oops,
that sounds like GC).

	John.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Larry Roux
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:23 PM
To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Note for Jeff


I could show a few examples of where ch is NOT a single glyph (unfortunately
I am at work and don't have the pages readily handy).  So, remember, your
OPINION is that ch is a single entity.  Everyone does not have to agree


******************************
Larry Roux
Syracuse University
lroux@xxxxxxx
*******************************

>>> incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12/16/03 03:54PM >>>
Hi Jeff,

At 19:42 16/12/2003 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>Thanks Robert. I have already seen the site and in fact that was what
>started me off in this direction. I honestly have no idea what I might do
on
>the VMS from here on. I get the nagging feeling that either I am in the
>right direction as far as the cipher goes or that it is artificial. Only
one
>of those two choices. If I am right about it being artificial, then the way
>it was done will almost certainly deny any proof of the fact. If it IS
>enciphered then a lot of detailed structural analysis of the text is
needed.
>Probably far too much for me to take on with all the other stuff I need to
>sort out.
>
>It really needs a team effort. That is one thing you rarely find amongst
>those with differing views or theories.

Curiously enough, this *is* a team effort - but you don't seem to have
taken on board what other team members have been telling you. For example,
your mind seems to be a closed book as far as ch / sh being (almost
certainly) single letters rather than two, let alone whether ii / iii / ee
/ eee should be treated as single entities (or even qo / ol / or).

Whether you've been going in the right direction or not, taking such a
single unmoveable position on the (numerous) details would seem to have
restricted your ability to understand (and satisfactorily account for) the
complexity of the patterns in the VMs.

I think the truth is this: that you've got it into your mind that (AFA
ciphers go) because Voynichese words are often just about the right length
to transliterate normal European language words (through some complex but
as-yet-undetermined schema), that's what must be going on. Unfortunately,
it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this is literally the case - the
internal structure of VMs words indicates that something very
un-languagelike is going on.

But does that necessarily mean that the only alternative is an artificial
language? Well - no, actually. Other types of cipher (from the ones you've
been looking at) could have the same kind of effect we're seeing, or even
tricky hoaxes (like Gordon Rugg's). "Oranges are not the only fruit." :-)

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
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003


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