Re: Re: VMs: Thoughts about Roman numbers in the VMS

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Well, the script of the VM may be similar to Latin abbreviations - most
likely with
> different meaning, so it may be purely coincidental - and even to some
shorthand glyphs,
> but if we look at Ted Young's
> http://demo.gavelintl.com/vmssymmetry.gif
> it looks like majority of symbols consists of only TWO basic "strokes" and
this is
> definitely no coincidence.

Your Mr. Young is following in the footsteps of a master, namely myself.  I
viewed this page when it was first posted, and smiled just a little smile,
looking around to see that it was not noticed.  His initial presentation is
wrong of course, but he has the rudiments, and the light will soon shine.  I
myself posted several of these glyph associations, in their proper order,
but finally ceased due to lack of comment, which I assumed to be
disinterest,  from the list.  Mr. Young is correct in his assumption that
there is a definite pattern in their construction.  It's up to him to now
determine the number in each order, and the sequence of each order of
construction.  This you can only do from frequency and placement study, and
in order to perform such a study, you have to actually record the variants,
something that has been done in only one transcription  to date.

>By stroke I mean the simple elements such as line, arc, etc.,
> as it is seen in above table. It gives us an idea that those characters
were originally
> all arranged in some matrix, say 5 by 5, to cover all combinations. We can
clearly
> see that certain part of "characters" was engineered with some intent,
namely to provide
> the simplicity of writing, some order and the minimum number of strokes.
> That is why I called the system "invented" - individual Latin
abbreviations did not
> have such COMMON denominator, I presume.  And it is this genial simplicity
> and symetry, which makes the script quite beautiful.

You're warm, very warm.  Mr. Young's table does not yet incorporate the
symbolism that links one glyph to another.  He's only yet exploring basic
forms, many of which appear similar, but are by demonstration in the actual
text, dissimilar in context and meaning.

> Then there is a group of "gallows", quite  unexpectedly of different
structure
> (and substantially taller than the others). This suggests that the meaning
of those
> may be quite different.  Actually  there is  an instance ( maybe more)
when one
> gallows symbol is shared with two "words" (f56r) - and I still cannot
understand
> what does it mean (sharing of "half a character" while each half is
different?). One
> thing is sure: the symbols can hardly represent syllables, the basic
strokes would
> not cover for the whole alphabet - there is simply not enough of them.

I most recently offered an explanation for this phenomenon in a response to
Jeff, but be patient, you'll get there.

> Either way, I do not think all this was just a simple evolvement from
former scripts - that
> would invariably lead to more variability then we can see in the VM and
mask
> the structure we can see there.
> It almost looks like the author started his invention  from scratch, using
the simplest
> strokes possible. As for the Latin characters, sure, we can group them
too, but
> the grouping is rather vague (i.e. already mentioned
> ..   "i", "n" and   "m", "f", "t" and "l",  "e", "c" and "o",  "b", "d"
and "k"... ).
> That  is because it is based only on partial, sometimes even dubious
similarity
> and there is hardly any logical connection or systematic arrangement
there.
> Again, the fact that the VM script is mainly a composite of two strokes,
> some of which are even standalone, created the necessity to leave spaces
> between individual "characters", while the world around was  - most
likely -
> already using "connected" scripts. This, I believe, is also certain
drawback
> in otherwise well engineered script.

You're trying to reach too many conclusions without hard evidence at hand,
and I would suggest that you take a step back and let the evidence itself
begin to build your case.  You're already jumping to the conclusion that
Latin abbreviations could not have formed the basis for the script because
of the stroke value, and in that assumption you'll find a fatal error.  The
first step is one into the real world, where Latin abbreviations form the
basis for the script.  Accept the fact that the author was no DaVinci, that
he didn't come up with this s....tuff on his own, and work from there.  By
looking at simple strokes, you're looking in the wrong place.  Look instead
at what was known, why the author chose it and what the author did with it.
NO ONE, and I can't say that loudly enough, makes so many accurate matches
to known systems of notation from his own genius alone.  Look to what he did
with what he had.....   look to what he did with what he had.....  don't get
caught up in "stroke" analysis.

I can show you German and Latin script written with similar stroke value,
and no one dissects them because the overall glyph representation is
recognizable and readable. as German or Latin.  The writing style is
similar, but only one is unrecognizable, and therefore over-analyzed.   An
example of this is the EVA <iin>.  We all know that this is a cursive "m",
we all refer to it as a contiguous glyph, no matter the transcription
alphabet, and any of us who've studied manuscripts from this time period can
demonstrate examples of this style of "stroke" compiled "m", knowing that
these strokes compose a single letter, and that the strokes are part of an
overall system of alphabetic notation, written usually as Latin, and are
primarily a function of the writing instrument and the writing medium, the
guiding lights in medieval script construction.  We never question the "m"
when it's obviously Latin, but in the VMS, some have decided to record it
stroke for stroke.  They wear stronger glasses than I do, since I'm still
able to stand back and look at the larger picture.  I first saw an "m", I
still see an "m", and I will see an "m" in the future.


My commendations to your Mr. Young however.  He did eek out a smile from my
pursed lips.  He has a great deal of work to perform before he gains my
applause, so for now a commendatory nod must suffice.

GC

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