Re: VMs: Re: Re: Transcription Ramble

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

illumin8 wrote:

> I have always paid attention to your posts. You chose a concrete angle
> of attack and stuck to it. I have no idea if it's right. But it's going
> to have to make beautiful simple sense to me like Brumbaugh's cipher. ;)

Finally, someone who understands Brumbaugh's cipher!  Would you mind
explaining it to me? :-)  I do hope I can do a little bit better than
Brumbaugh, and not leave so many loose ends and meaningless sequences.  As
cipher solutions go though, Brumbaugh had nothing on Newbold, who must have
taken his cue from Elizabeth Gallup and her Biliteral Cipher of Francis
Bacon.  Better than that even, was Dr. Owens, who took all the pages of
Shakespeare's First Folio and pasted them on a long canvas belt, turned by
drums.  He'd rotate the drums, stop and pull out a single word or phrase,
and compose a complete text using this ingenious method of decipherment.
There was also an English chap who spent the better part of 20 years
angramming the entire First Folio, in no particular order except that which
fit what he wanted it to say.  If I'm not right then at least I'm in very
good company, and I'll try to come up with a creative method of "proving"
it?!?  I was thinking of something along the lines of spinning zodiac
volvelles, whirring gear mechanisms and that sound made by Robbie the Robot?
Oh yes, flashing lights.  Need many many flashing lights and lots of pushy
little buttons........  and a starship..... and really cool uniforms......

> Unless I completely missed your sarcasm about <sh> vs <Sh>, I say
> Currier/Z/, Frogguy[c't], EVA<Sh> could be many characters glommed
> together. There are "c plume" /c+plume/[c']<e'> = /2/[s]<s>, & "long c
> plume" //[e']<c'=164?> to name the obvious. So even the basic glyph is
> in question with long and short versions with initial, medial, and final
> plumes. And aren't you the one saying there are even round and pointed
> plumes?

I like the word "plume" instead of my "hook".  We're in agreement on this
point.  These are separate entities and should be recorded as such.  I
haven't looked at them all in the sids, but I can honestly say that I have
viewed every single instance of this glyph form in the entire manuscript in
microfilm.  My initial visual scan of the sids confirms to me what I was
saying, and there is one added that I had identified but doubted, the <ch>
with a dot over it.  I've checked the instances of this and the dot is no
photographic artifact.  Don't forget to look for these plumes over other
glyphs besides the <ch>.  You get some basic idea that there is a set of
"constants" and a set of "variables".  At the very least this information
should be encoded in the EVA transcription.

I'll contact you in the near future with urls pointing to the files.  I
would right now, but it's way past my nap time, and you know how cranky I
get when I haven't had my nap!  :-(

GC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <illumin8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Re: Transcription Ramble


> GC wrote:
> >
> > I'm actually more concerned with
> > your identification of <sh> to <s>.  That's a disturbing political view
if I
> > ever saw one! :-)
> >
> > I am impressed that you agree with me on so many points of my ramble.  I
> > thought it would go away unnoticed, like all other posts on this topic.
> >
> I have always paid attention to your posts. You chose a concrete angle
> of attack and stuck to it. I have no idea if it's right. But it's going
> to have to make beautiful simple sense to me like Brumbaugh's cipher. ;)
>
> Unless I completely missed your sarcasm about <sh> vs <Sh>, I say
> Currier/Z/, Frogguy[c't], EVA<Sh> could be many characters glommed
> together. There are "c plume" /c+plume/[c']<e'> = /2/[s]<s>, & "long c
> plume" //[e']<c'=164?> to name the obvious. So even the basic glyph is
> in question with long and short versions with initial, medial, and final
> plumes. And aren't you the one saying there are even round and pointed
> plumes?
>
>
> > > Stand-alone characters are key to me. The marginal keys (if original)
> > > f049v & f066r and the rings on f057v show many PARTS of glyphs that
are
> > > usually considered whole.
> >
> > I also made a pdf of these, something called a-singles.pdf.  Don't know
> > where that went, but I have it if you want it.  If you compare
> > transcriptions, many identifications of single glyphs are contested by
the
> > "half-space" perception problem from earlier images, but there are only
a
> > handful of stand-alones.
> >
> I should go back to your site. It's been a year or so.
>
>
> > Do I have a job for you!  Seriously - my transcription font now contains
> > about 99% of the information it will finally contain, but I assigned
glyphs
> > on a one-up order beyond the basic glyph mnemonics.  If you're
interested,
> > I'd like you to take that file and re-order the glyphs to a mnemonic
system.
> > I'd provide statistics on glyph popularity, etc.   If you're interested,
> > contact me.
> >
> Email me what you've got if it's less than 200KB. Mail me a link if
> larger. I'd like to see it.
>
>
> illumin8
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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