Re: Evolution - was VMs: Inks and retouching

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, we're in agreement on the <in/ii>.  Can you give me a
folio location for your '@'?  Is this EVA?  I still can't find it.

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Grove" <4groves@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: Evolution - was VMs: Inks and retouching


>
> GC,
>
> For a few years at least we've both been arguing on the same side but
> from different perspectives and terminology - and in my case with no real
> theory; just observation. What I've referred to in the past regarding the
> 'stroke' order concept is pretty much exactly what you refer to as
separate
> glyphs as c, cc, ccc, (unfortunately interchangeable with 'e', 'ee',
'eee')
> or i, ii, iii. One argument I recall from Gabriel was that if a word
> contained
> an 'eee' how could we tell if it was supposed to be 'ee' + 'e', or
'e'+'ee',
> or
> 'eee', or 'e' + 'e' + 'e'. Which of course missed the point I had tried to
> make
> that in my view - both the 'i' and 'c' stroke characters/glyphs require a
> closing
> ligature to separate them; thus, an eee isn't finished until the next
piece
> of
> the glyph (which is where your glyphs and mine go there separate ways -
> sometimes).
>
> See, what is referred to as 'in' in my view is actually the 'ii' glyph
with
> a final ligature and relates in design to what is rarely found in the 'ee'
> stroke
> as 'eb'. The '@' is problematic and isn't really represented well - is a
> wierdo -
> but of the same construct as many other compound glyphs: Complex because
the
> seem
> to alter the glyph construction process by adding more than normal
ligature
> 'endings'.
>
> The wierdo's that make of a small set of 'ch' or 'sh' type glyphs without
> 'end-stroke'
> attached to the right of the 'h' to form a shortened 'chy' or 'cho' etc...
> These wierdo's
> are explained by the stroke-concept better than just being labelled as
> wierdos in general.
> The '@' is basically the same thing with an 'a' that isn't followed by an
> 'n' but has the
> 'n' 'end-stroke' attached directly to the right side of the 'a' which
seems
> to suggest that
> the 'a' itself is an 'e' beginning stroke followed by an 'i' end-stroke.
>
> Taking that a step-further means that there really isn't an 'i' beginning
> stroke 8-) and
> all characters (less gallows perhaps) start with an 'e'. This doesn't work
> ofcourse because 'l'
> is a stand-alone character as well and words like oiin which cause some
> heartache to this observation,
> so I'm not firm on saying a glyph has to start with an 'e' - yet.
>
> As I continue to babble onward...
>
> Okeey then consists of 'o'+'k'+'eey' The 'eey' is made up of the glyph
> 'eee' and a signifier
> to close the glyph. There is no way you could read that as
> 'o'+'k'+'e'+'e'+'y' this way. My rule of thumb
> is therefore... open with an 'e' and wait till you hit a closing ligature
of
> type 'r/s','n/b','j/d','l/y' or o.
>
> Now, this means that daiin is in my view only two glyphs 8-) 'd' + 'aiin'
> with the 'aiin' being built
> by using an opening 'e' with the 'iiii' glyph directly attached to the 'e'
> and followed by the closing stroke that
> makes it an EVA 'n'. Which means that we would have a lot more glyphs than
> we thought because 'a' isn't a glyph
> by itself anymore but specifies a secondary set of glyphs to read.
>
> e + end-strokes = 's,d,y,o,b'
> e + mid-stroke 'i,'h' = 'a,ch'
> complex glyphs: 'sh' = e+h+ (s,b)
> multiples of 'e' + endings create above five finals but preceded by
> 'e,ee,eee,eeee' ('es','eeo','eeey',etc...)
> multiples of 'e' + mulitples of midstroke i + " (air, aiin, aiiin, etc)
>
> Zero-beginning set:
> (no 'e' starter')
> mid-stroke ('i') + end-stroke ='r,j,l,n'
> multiples of 'i' + " (so stand-alone 'iin' is different than 'aiin', but
> both are single glyphs)
>
> Weirdo - complexities:
>
> @ = 'e'+'i'+'n-final' is different from 'an' which is constructed by
> 'e'+'ii'+'n-final' > again, I like to consider
> the '@' and the 'an' and the 'ain' and the 'aiin' and the 'aiiin' as 5
> separate characters/glyphs - perhaps related to one another, perhaps not.
>
> The same for the wierdo 'chy' (not sure of the EVA weirdo ident number),
> but it follows the same construction method as the '@' above:
> 'e'+'h'+'y-final' and differs from the normal 'chy' which is constructed
by
> 'e'+'h'+'e'+'y' (two glyphs in this case 'ch'+'ey'...
>
> Okay, back to the @ for a second... if 'i-stroke were beginning characters
> as well as end-characters':
>
> 'e'+ending 'i' make an 'a' by itself, but 'e'+ ending 'i' +
> 'i-beginning'+'n-ending' creates a two glyph word with 'a'+'n' and follows
> the same construct as the 'chy' wierdo etc...
>
> Occasionally, there are glyphs with multiple 'h' endings as well =
> 'e'+'h'+'h' = 'chh'.
> Other wierdo's simply place the 'end-stroke' above another 'end-stroke'
> (those 4-o's with a 's-type ligature above the o')
>
> Well... I guess that's enough babbling.
>
>
> John.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of GC
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 5:31 AM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Evolution - was VMs: Inks and retouching
>
>
> John,
>
> I hope I'm not testing your patience by carrying this discussion one level
> further in clarification, specifically on the 'evolution' of theory.
>
> I think I've made relatively obvious my thought processes on glyph
> identification.  The first step was to notice (as so many others before
me)
> that there was space between symbols.  It's jumping to a conclusion, but
the
> rational path is to follow the familiar in this instance, based on the
> western appearance of the manuscript.  That western-based conclusion would
> be that the spaces between one glyph and the next delineate a unit of
> writing.  These units compose words, separated by larger spaces, then
lines
> and paragraphs.  This assumption is validated by the fact that so many
> thousands of glyphs fit this observation, and only a relative few do not.
> This is the core logic - recording all connected strokes that exist
between
> the spaces, even Nick's {4o}, as a glyph.  I've said many times that the
> first approach is to record what is written as faithfully as possible,
then
> use statistical and other means to formulate further assumptions.
>
> My last post described the next step in the process, the formulation of
> further assumptions, specifically relating to similarity of form and
> grouping.  One of the things I left out is the necessity of having the
> recorded information at the ready for cross-reference and study.  Properly
> formatted information cuts down on processing time, and precise indexing
in
> several forms - folio, paragraph, line, word, glyph, as well as bifolio
and
> Currier "Language" - allows for speedy recovery of data and the literally
> thousands of cross-checks necessary when formulating the working
assumptions
> that when tested and proven lead to the creation of hypotheses and
theories.
> Tedious doldrum, but absolutely necessary.
>
> Once in awhile I pass on observations, such as the one where I said that
not
> all Currier[A] pages were written in what passes for Currier [A].  I
usually
> don't offer supporting information, as it has always been my hope that the
> reader would investigate these matters for themselves.  But since this
> discussion is on the evolution of theory, I'll offer a bit of detail.
>
> A glyph based transcription in VMS studies has a decided advantage over
any
> other, since its form and function are rooted in the observed writing
style
> of the manuscript itself, and therefore most closely mirrors what is
written
> on a page.  Going beyond this is adding noise to the signal, and in
certain
> cases, the noise can drown out the signal entirely.  I've seen the color
> charts that demonstrate certain overlaps in folios.  In some cases my own
> data clarifies, and in others it doesn't recognize these overlaps at all.
> It may be arrogant of me, but I consider them as photographs taken with a
> camera out of focus.  Fuzzy charts with fuzzy edges.  The "cameras" used
in
> these charts cannot resolve data down to the paragraph level, and can
often
> misinterpret an entire page.  These kinds of things demonstrate a
confidence
> relative to the information fed into them.
>
> Here's a snapshot taken from my information, and for purposes of general
> discussion I will only focus on a single glyph, and not the other
supporting
> features of this page.
>
> In the contiguous herbal section, the glyph {c} (EVA <e>) makes up 5.2% of
> the glyphs in this section.  EVA probably counts over 800 more occurrences
> of {c} than by my methodology.  By my count {c} is present in about 1 in
> every 5 words in this section on average, with a heavier bias toward [B]
> pages.  My word count for f18r is 77, not counting half-spaces, while the
> EVA word count is 83.  Addition of half-spaces would bring our counts
equal,
> though the half-space is a feature that should be recorded.
>
> EVA counts 4 {c}'s on f18r, but my count is 3.  A quick scan of the page
> indicates that the EVA transcription of f18r.11.3 is faulty, and that the
> real count should be 3, not 4.  A little math says that there's something
> way out of whack here.  If you think that a bit odd, go to the verso,
f18v,
> and by my count there is no {c} glyph at all on the entire page.  What we
do
> have are {c} glyphs in the groupings I described earlier.  Providing my
own
> definitions for these glyphs would be meaningless, but pictorially they
> would be -
>
> {ccc} f18v.2.1
> {cc} f18v.5.1
> {ccc} f18v.6.4
>
> There is more to paragraph and page transition than meets the EVA eye.
> Tracing the flow to its source is important, and this cannot be broken
down
> into generalized groups like Currier's [A]/[B], or even dealt with using
> basic Currier transcription or the odd European fad that occasionally pops
> out of the hat.  Tracking glyphs like these, seeing where they occur, what
> comes before that is statistically different, what comes after, and what
the
> neighborhood looks like, is very important stuff.  When these occur, what
is
> present, what is always missing?  This doesn't grab the headlines or
> imagination like dark painters and Chinese copyist-retouchers, etc., but
> it's the only way to reach the top, one rung at a time.  Each rung gained
> gets you a little higher so you look down at a larger part of the puzzle.
>
> GC
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:47 AM
> Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching
>
>
> > John wrote:
> >
> > > Sometimes your 'colour' is just a little too colourful. 8-)
> >
> > What the heck, it was only Wednesday, and I'm not due to visit Earth
again
> > till next week.  So much of conversation is simply too serious, maybe I
do
> > get carried away - I'll try to reign in my id. :-)
> >
> > > Anyway, in reference to the oddity of the word ending in 'i' I don't
> think
> > > anyone decided that and EVA <i> couldn't end a word - it just didn't
in
> > all
> > > but
> > > this one circumstance (I think). The fact that you agree that this
> > assertion
> > > is
> > > correct doesn't do much in the way of making a point. The possibility
> that
> > > the author
> > > ran out of room seems reasonable since we don't have much else to go
on.
> >
> > A couple examples, you're right, not much to go on here:
> >
> > f29r.5.6 - here you also have my alternate {8} and my alternate {a} in
the
> > same word, unusual.
> >
> > f55r.10.5 - again we have the alternate {a} in association, and the <i>
> may
> > or may not be separate from the 'second a'.
> >
> > We have an example of the double <i> ending a word at f32v.7.7.
> >
> > > However,
> > > I think that 'm' is normally the expected
> > > 'oops-I-ran-out-linespace-so-guess-the
> > > rest-of-the-word-when-reading' ending to a voynich word.
> >
> > My reverse sort lists 12 1/2 pages of words ending in {m} for the herbal
> > section alone.  (Reminder  - Gotta make one of these for the rest of the
> > manuscript).  I haven't gone into my database to tally them up, but I'd
> put
> > the figure at roughly 12%.  So if the {m} is some sort of abbreviatory
> > signal, then what is the {n}?  This would add about another 3% to the
> tally.
> >
> > > >> 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?
> > >
> > > Don't forget that sometimes the 'n' is part of an '@', just like
> sometimes
> > > a 'y' or an 'o' is part of a 'ch'...
> >
> > Okay, I'm a little lost.  I pulled up the dreaded EVA chart to locate an
> @,
> > but couldn't find it.  I opened the EVAhand1 font file and the @
location
> is
> > blank.  I did notice that EVA for my @ is <u>.  EVA <u> *looks* like an
@,
> > so it was a ringer for the the job, even though it occurs in the herbal
> > section one time, at the end of f35v.6.3.
> >
> > > >> 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>.
> > >
> > > Interesting, and how exactly can one tell that the 'i' in the middle
of
> a
> > > word
> > > is actually an 'n' and not an 'r','l', or even a 'j'?
> >
> > An EVA <j>?  Curious connection.  I would have gone for the EVA <m> as a
> > more likely suspect.  Anyway, this all goes back to the discussion
awhile
> > ago (maybe more than a year?) of observed sets of glyphs and how the
human
> > mind abhores chaos.
> >
> > I believe I made the observation that *most* created alphabets appear to
> be
> > based on patterns.  Those found in Porta were the ones I used as
example,
> > where a pattern was chosen and only slightly modified from one glyph to
> the
> > next for each alphabet.  I don't have a degree in logic or psychology,
but
> > I've been around long enough to notice that people love patterns, and
the
> > easier to remember, the better.  They also never venture outside their
> > sphere of knowledge, and after a certain age do not attempt to increase
> this
> > sphere, as a rule.  These observations served as one of my primary keys
to
> > understanding.  My 'logic' went something like this:
> >
> > Education at this time was not only heavily mnemonic, it also attempted
to
> > incorporate all sciences into one by connection.  Medical science and
> > herbalism for instance, were inextricably tied to astronomy/astrology.
> The
> > author lived and breathed unseen patterns and connections.  So why would
> he
> > then create a script where similar patterns had no connection
whatsoever?
> >
> > With this in mind, I took all the glyphs I'd previously recorded, and
> began
> > setting them out in groups on a page, based on similarity.  Not
> > surprisingly, the bulk of these fit into neat little groups, and those
> > groups had the same number of glyphs in each.  Your EVA <n> for example,
> has
> > the <n>, the <in>, and the <iin> as the three most used.  There is an
> > occasional <iiin>, but very weak signal here.  These groupings are
> identical
> > in number and form for your EVA <r>, <s> and <m>.  My connected {c}
> > groupings, your EVA <e>, has identical number and structure.  Again the
> same
> > for the gallows groupings.
> >
> > There was that little subset that was troubling, the {c} with a tail,
the
> > {a} with a tail (EVA <u>, my {@}.  <i> glyphs without finals, etc.  They
> all
> > have one thing in common however that places them not in a subset, but
in
> > the mainstream.  When a westerner writes an {m} or an {n} in the middle
of
> a
> > word, it would seem inappropriate to give it a final tail - it just
looks
> > odd.  We don't finish words with {a} or {c} usually, but the same
applies,
> > only in reverse.  The locations for the modified {a} and {c} are word
> finals
> > or stand-alones.  The locations for the "unterminated" {m} and {n} are
> > always in the middle of a word, and as you pointed out, there are only a
> > couple of examples of the EVA <i> as finals, and in two of the three
cases
> I
> > listed above, there was little room to write the hook.  The third case
is
> > questionable as the actual glyph itself.
> >
> > Now we go to the extended groups, and each has one or two examples in
the
> > "this just don't fit" subset.  Each example follows the rule stated
above.
> > So the herbal section has 39 examples of my "ccc" glyph (proper EVA
would
> be
> > <EEe>?) in the middle of words, and we have 6 examples of this same
glyph
> as
> > word terminator, each with the final "hook" or flourish.  This also
holds
> > true for EVA <i>, EVA <Ii> and EVA <IIi> in the middle of words.  Out of
> > character maybe, but one thing changes - the above holds true for my
"cc"
> > glyph, but only for the Currier [A] material.  Later on, possibly for
> > writing convenience in heavier text sections, the author dropped the
final
> > flourish in most instances when this glyph ends a word.
> >
> > The research is a little more evolved in areas of glyph variation and
> > intended meaning, but this sums up the basics.  You can't begin to
> decipher
> > until you've got a grasp on glyph construction and transcription, so
this
> > has been a very important and involved part of my study.
> >
> > I hope this cleared things up a bit.
> >
> > GC
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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: 6.0.721 / 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