Re: VMs: Re: How to write <ch> and <sh>...?

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene wrote:

> > I'm no EVA officionado, but I'd say that when you
> > ask how to write <ch> or
> > <sh> in EVA, you've answered your own question.
>
> Interestingly, Currier makes some strong statements
> on this, and I wonder how much they can be
> supported throughout the MS. Nick's impression
> seems to be different.

I have personally seen some of the images that were used in Currier
analysis, as well as the images used in Friedman's analysis.  I passed on a
couple of these in original that I'd acquired to Jim Gillogly, purportedly
from those images once held by R.G. Kent.  My sense of these images was that
Currier etal., made their best judgments at the time based on what they had
available, as we all have.  I still hold that no portion of Currier's work
can be rejected outright, but only improved on with new images and
information.  As to the validity of Nick's impressions, we'd have to first
perform an in-depth analysis into the hallucinogenic compounds present in
English tea before passing final judgment, wouldn't we? :-)  Actually as I
see it, Nick's wrestling with the same problem, only with new and improved
imagery.  To Nick and everyone else who's overwhelmed with the detail of the
MrSids imagery I'd suggest that it's appropriate first of all to gain a
sense of scale, that the text averages a 9 point type, and then work up from
there.  All of a sudden we're inundated with far more information than we
can handle, and a sense of perspective is definitely in order.

> > Perhaps you might get a
> > wild hair and write <Ch> or <Sh>? you should also be
> > able to write <ch> as
> > <Eh>, and hopefully the reverse is true, <ch> as
> > <cE>.
>
> As an Eva non-afficionado you're excused for not
> being fully aware of the rules here :-)

I have a copy of the EVA alphabet, and know that certain glyphs don't have
capitals to denote connectivity, while others do.  I've had to read EVA in
posts for six years, so I have a 'sense' of what is proper and what is not.
I'm not an EVA officionado because I'm unaware of the rules, I'm not an EVA
officinado because there's absolutely NO reason whatsover to refer to a
glyph that occurs about 10,000 times (no exaggeration) as <ch>, while
referring to another glyph that occurs to a lesser extent (about 9,000)in
the manuscript as an <a>.  Who made these rules anyway?  If it's <ch>, why
isn't it also <ei> for the {a} glyph?  <ch> occurs more often as a unit than
<a> does, yet it's been complicated by the "this stroke counts, that stroke
doesn't" ambiguity.  If you're going to stroke, then stroke.  If you're
going to make glyph assignments, please do so, but don't do them
arbitrarily.  And don't even get me started on the <sh>.  There is no such
glyph in the entire Voynich manuscript, yet this particular method of
construction exists in EVA.  Get real.  Jorge, I found your UFO's :-)

> Eva, like Currier, does not recognise
> the difference between the various shapes of the
> plumes, but should a reliable identification
> plus transcription using it exist, it could easily
> be incorporated. (It is tentatively foreseen
> through the use of the same mechanism as in
> Frogguy).

Currier didn't know any better, but we do.  So what you're saying here is
that if my transcription proves to be "reliable" (after six passes I'd
certainly hope so), that you would "incorporate" VGBT-2 by transliterating
it into EVA along-side the other transcriptions in the interlinear?  I'll
tell you with certainty that this is a non-event.  You will never have my
permission while I'm living, and you won't have it after my death.  Did
Currier write <ch>?  No, he didn't.  He saw one glyph, not two strokes.  Did
he see <sh>?  Absolutely not, and you've referenced some of his comments in
that regard.  Did the FSG teams transcribe these as strings of strokes
instead of single glyphs?  NO, they didn't.  And the compiler of the
interlinear had absolutely NO right to transliterate their transcriptions
and in the process remove the theory and perception incorporated in those
transcriptions.  Transliteration into EVA of ANY previous system with the
exception of Frogguy has removed the very basis of their analyses of the
text from the discussion, and it will not happen here, I assure you.  The
interlinear transliteration WRONGS hard research, and as much as I see that
this attempt was a good-faith effort to standardize transcription, it served
the opposite purpose, especially since EVA and Frogguy are in the historical
minority of transcription concept and effort.  (Read carefully the word
MINORITY).

> In a meeting where we were looking at very
> detailed colour slides, some years ago in the
> UK, it was observed that in a particular case
> of <sh> the plume was written before the <ch>.
> This was from the darkness of the ink. Now, I
> am ready to believe that what we did see then is
> what is now considered the work of the 'retoucher'
> (whoever he was and whenever he did it).

Now we're back to the 'retoucher' again.  I'll hold out on this one.

> Note that Georg Baresch writes the characters
> 'ch' rather similar to the Eva <sh>. This is
> probably not an uncommon way for Germanic scripts
> at the time.
> Obviously, this means that he writes it in the
> order: c -> 'plume' -> rest of h.

I haven't seen his writing, but would love to see it.  I've got quite a
collection going, a build that has been years in the making.

When all is said and done, one person's efforts will solve, and one person
is left to write the story from that person's perspective.  One can only
hope that this person is big enough to rise above bias and animosity and
present a true history of events.  A serious and devoted student might find
this particular task far more difficult than the actual solution.  Just an
opinion.

GC

> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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