[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Work on the relation penstroke -> letters?

hi Elmar & all :-) 

"smallest unit of measure = What you SEE is what you GET!-=se=-"

While I for one(of 12?) had a _unique introduction_ to the voynich 
manuscript, I would like to suggest you consider the study of the 
)white space( breaks in between the actual characters and you should 
see that they are ALL indeed "STAND ALONE" characters that "appear" 
like (@ first glance) 
~scripted writing~ to us, now.a.days... BUT, THEY ARE _NOT_ CONNECTED 
one +  another. (yes I know about reDIPping your quill/INK pin etc.)
  The reason, I know, (per ES) is that THEY (the individual 
are ALL "pointers" to a particular _position_ on a folded (now 
missing?) KEY PAGE! (similar to the cordon key but NOT! (vms floats)


Actually, if I showed you "physically" I think you would "Get It" and 
"WE" would not even consider putting THE KEY _in_ the vms book  (if we 
knew how simple it was to lay out.)

(Re-creating THAT FOLDED KEY will ~CRACK THE VMS~) but, someone tore 
years ago??? (sigh) - but, WE CAN _reverse_ engineer IT !!)
Your questions on/of "i's" is VALID. i,ii,iii (per ES) are forwarding 
(the position pointer) on the above mention KEY PAGE to code & decode 

[BTW: c,cc,ccc are BACKING UP (mirroring/reversing)on the key / per 

Other symbols, (POINTERS), abound in the vms character (entropy 
starved) SET to provide MORE THAN ENOUGH confussion to cover the 
over the shoulder lookie-lou's (that was the intention (per 
MEANT TO BE DECODED UNTIL NOW! - The Time is NOW! (that's good?)!!

crazy as it sounds, ALL LETTERS are unique (scribbles and doddles 
aside) and there is MUCH leeway on their shapes - so it it really not 
to discern "what is that/THE character(s)?" after all these years.

No need to go "Microscopic on IT", H*ck, it's small enough already!!

1 half "(1/2)": TTT _position KEY TABLE_ looks like this: (per ES)


8="*.*" not used = wild card? (& S is mirrored in vms) 
(still working on c,cc,ccc)

the character SHAPES "point" to _their positions_ (whatever key).
(actually the CENTER is OPEN per ES) but to hard to eXplain in AScii)


A "S" is an S or the "4" is a 4, a 2 is a "2" no matter the Size, or 
positioning OR the drop of the bottom (horizontal) leg... a 2 is NEVER 
an S etc..

The KEY is fairly LARGE (yet, small (fitting any) 1 vellum page), 8x8 
TTT & 1/2 
but, actually small - that is why it is _SIMPLER than most think!_
a simple TTT (TIC.TAC.TOE Board) design. With ANOTHER TTT placed in 
each of these TTT quadrants. (totaling just 81 max (insert 
charcters here (areas)), but that's 
a LOT!!, if 
you consider exponentialisims(sp?) (of the 
flipping/foldinge) _gallows_ encountered) etc..
The method of ES (& our) madness is that all characters can work 

IT IS _NOT_ simple substitution of characters. (THEY ~just~ FLOAT). 

KEY(s) =  include (at least(1)) the "FOLDING technique". 

AND (2) "IT"'s in some known (today) language...
IT is extremely cunning (more than I know?) ~another bummer :-(~
IT was _designed_ to drive you MAD ~IF~ you study/look at it!
~weird eh?~ 
(ok ok OK NO wise cracks here - actually I still don't like to LOOK)
IT's fairly simple in design *IF* you can handle a _MIRROR_ image!
(ps) the KEY(s) flip-Flop's (Mirror) on Gallows!
IT CAN BE DECODED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I CAN decode this?? (bummer?)!! we got the wrong man here!! LOL
I was told I could not read it after decoding! now there's a rub!!
the difference between i, ii, iii is just that (1,2,3) simple!

hope I explained it (i.e. ES folding it) a little better?
best to you & yours
steve (pertinacious on FOLDING/FlIpPiNg IT/Keys) ekwall :-)

ok (as *ES-appointed 1 of 12*?) release your volleys *BoNk.OuChEY*) 

electronically signed: Thursday 
p.s. (-=se=->[electronically: I HOLD NO PATENT OR USE TO 
anyone can use any & everything I've ever typed ref: VMS)

 Date: 13 Jan 2004 08:34:59 +0100
 From: elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx
 Reply-To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
 To: VMs List <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: VMs: Work on the relation penstroke -> letters?
 Hello everyone,
 It occured to me lately that people appear to be taking the current VM 
 transcription schemes for granted. Based on the transcription, there is a 
 tremenduous amount of cunning work being done on the properties, statistics 
 etc. of the text.
 But upon a closer look I found it very difficult to uniquely identify what 
 would be a "letter" (ie, the smallest independent unit of information) in the 
 MS, and what would just be the penstrokes which constitute it.
 For example, the "iiiv"-sequence could really be four letters, "iiv" could be 
 three. But at the same time, the "i"s could be used like we use arcs in writing 
 latin letters, so "iii" might be "m", and "ii" might be "n", thus the sequences 
 would be two letters both times. Or in both cases the "i"s really belong to 
 the "v", and the whole sequence is just a single letter every time.
 I understand that this would make a huge difference on the evaluation of the 
 text. For example, I found if you're really rigorous, you can cut down the 
 number of different symbols to 10 or so -- things like word length or 
 repetivity (repetitiouness? ;-) would heavily depend on it.
 Yet most people seem to take the current tanscription schemes for granted, and 
 only give a fleeting glance to this question which I feel is very basic and 
 fundamental. So, did I miss research which clearly answered that question, or 
 are people simply taking the transcription for granted, since it's easier to 
 tackle with the statistical apparatus we have?
 P.S.: I latly checked a few MS in gothic/late medieval handwriting, where 
 people did exactly the same -- compose letters from a set of only a few 
 different strokes, which is what brought me to this idea.
 debitel.net Webmail
 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