Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

I have to chuckle a bit about people finding the <okai> at f3v.6.7 strangely
placed.  Someone decided that an EVA <i> cannot end a word, and they're
correct on this, I assure you.  No one seems to have differentiated here on
the variations of this pattern.  If as many of us 'assume', the <in> and
<iin> are indeed {n} and {m} respectively, what is the EVA <n> by itself?
does the <n> ever occur in the middle of a word as a stand-alone?  Or does
the <in> or <iin>?  These are glyph patterns, one-two-three strokes, and all
three can be found in the middle of words, only without the distinguishing
flourish that makes an <i> an <n>.  I record these glyphs separately, but I
know them to be identical in form and function.  In the case of the <i> at
the end of f3v.6.7, the author simply ran out of room, in my view. :-)

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Grove" <4groves@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching


>
> As GC pointed out f3v.8.5 is an 'oka' and it doesn't look like any
> retouching was done to it. There's also a curious 'okai' as the last word
> on line 3. Maybe there is more in the paint - but I doubt it (just looking
> at the 8x).
>
> I'd say the qotoy is a 'y' and the 'sha' is an 'a'. Maybe the retouching
> are indicators of which grille to use 8-)
>
> John.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Nick Pelling
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 6:09 PM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching
>
>
> Hi GC,
>
> At 12:54 28/07/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
> >I'm at least happy you're using terms like "consistency" and
> "inconsistent",
> >because that's exactly what we're seeing. The 8 in f3v.14.1 is
inconsistent
> >with your counter-observation above, as are the e's in f3v.8.4 and
f3v.9.3.
> >One may identify specific features consistent with a specific subset, but
> no
> >single subset of observation creates the entire image.
>
> Well: no, not really. As per f3v.14.1 / f3v.12.2 (the word-initial <Sho>)
/
> f3v.10.1 (the <oShos>, the original ink appears to be affected by the
colou
>
> > > But hold on a minute: look again at the top line of the same page, and
> you
> > > should see some very unVoynichese Voynichese going on. Words three and
> >four
> > > (EVA <qotoa sha>) break most of the structure rules we're used to (no
> > > word-final a's, etc) - and in fact, I think you can see a faint tail
on
> >the
> > > sidfile beneath the first word-final <a>, where the original word was
> > > <qotoy>. Also, the second "o" of "qotoa" has a slightly different
shape
> > > from other o's (it has a "v-notch" at the top) - IMO, these letters
were
> > > retouched by someone who was not the author, who simply did not
> understand
> >
> >v-notch - these o's were accomplished writing two strokes.  The v-notch
is
> >where one stroke ends and the other begins.  This can be seen in varying
> >degrees throughout the manuscript, and is a Voynich feature.
>
> Perhaps you're not seeing what I'm seeing with this glyph. Look again at
> the shape of the end of the word-final <a> in f3v.1.4 - as well as the
> stroke shapes, the stroke ends are downward curved, arched round. Correct
> me if I'm wrong, but this appears to have been written with a more rounded
> nib, whereas the rest of the letters on the page have been written with a
> flatter nib. Same author?
>
> Anyway, perhaps we're simply missing the simply point about why the first
> part of the stroke making up EVA "n" is often heavier - that the writer
> pushed his quill upwards (down-right to up-left), before completing his
> stroke with a "plume". There are a good number of asymmetrical <Ch> pairs
> on this same page where the left <C-> half is heavy and the right <-h>
half
> is light - there's even a two-halved <o> (f3v.12.2). Perhaps for these
> pages, the scribe pushed his quill upwards in this way a lot of times, but
> wasn't yet experienced enough in writing Voynichese to control the flow of
> ink completely (it is only the start of the first quire, after all).
>
> >No word-final a's, is this a Voynich rule?  In the contiguous herbal
> section
> >there are seven, and though that's not a large number, I am reminded that
> >for every Voynich "rule", there is something to be found that does not
> >follow the rules.  These examples are located at:
> >
> >f3v.1.4
> >f3v.8.5
> >f11v.4.8
> >f14r.2.5
> >f32v.3.9
> >f44v.8.7
> >f45v.9.6
>
> I'll go after these another day (it's late, it's hot...)
>
> >IMHO whoever wrote this 'a' wrote the others.  The real
> >question is - is there any evidence of retouching on this a?  The simple
> >fact that it's darker than surrounding text does not immediately imply
> >retouching, yet you've already jumped to this conclusion.
>
> Errm... so the wispy tail underneath it doesn't count as evidence, then?
>
> >The effects you describe from the bleed-through is not the case at all.
If
> >the dark background were the cause of the ink appearing darker, EVERY
glyph
> >inside the dark background would appear darker than those outside.  Only
> the
> >heavier inked portions of the glyphs appear to be affected, not the
lighter
> >sections.
>
> No, plenty of lighter portions are affected as well. AFAICS, the ink isn't
> well-behaved enough to conclusively prove or disprove either of our
> theories on this page (a familiar story,*sigh*).
>
> >   This effect is relational to the pigmentation portion of the ink,
> >not to the sections where the ink is too thin to cover the bleed-through.
> >Where the pigment is too light or non-existent, this effect does not play
> >through.
>
> We're getting into the realms of psychophysics and perceived brightness
> here (back to retinex algorithms, again). Suffice to say that you have to
> be extremely careful when comparing brightnesses over a changing
background
> - the eye uses relative mechanisms for doing this, not absolute ones, and
> so what we see can be quite wrong, no matter how careful you are.
>
> >Are there any "retouched" glyphs you see on f3v besides the 'a'?
>
> As I mentioned before, I'm suspicious about both word-final <-a>'s on line
> 1, and the <-o-> preceding the first one: but while I'm really not seeing
> retouching everywhere, I'm definitely seeing it in places.
>
> Incidentally, has anyone tried colour deconvolution on this page,
> specifically on the end of line 2? This finishes "okai", which kind of
> suggests that the rest of the word might be the "-n" finishing the next
> line (which would be out of place otherwise), or obscured the daubed blue
> paint.
>
> >I said that features can be categorized in subsets, and when this can be
> >done, the effect is systemic in nature, not systematic as retouching
would
> >be.  I also implied if not directly stated that there are several subsets
> >here, the above discussion being on only one of these.
>
> If you think that subsets can overlap (ie you can have a reinking splodge
> being affected by bleedthrough, etc), then I'd agree.
>
> >I look forward to the retouching evidence.  So far we have Jorge's 'm'.
>
> I think f1r has more than you admit to, f3v's top line has some, the ink
> stain on f93r has quite a few, and the "okeos" in f73v Jorge mentioned
also
> seems to be in a different hand. This is only the start of a list, but
> probably not the whole list... we shall see. :-)
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 16/07/2004
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 16/07/2004
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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