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

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick,

> For <Ch>, there seem to be four recognisable patterns, please stop me if
> I'm wrong:-
> (1) start centre of horizontal bar, go leftwards to end, left stroke down,
> lift quill slightly, move back up to centre of bar, complete bar
rightwards > to end, right stroke down. Symptoms: "dip" in ink flow across
top of bar,
> faint line linking bottom left with centre of bar.

I don't have an example of this that comes to mind.  You're talking about a
'split' <ch>, something you might write in EVA as <c-h> if you used the '-'
as a demarcation?  Can you provide a reference for these instances so I can
comment?

Perhaps I can say something that clears up most of this, so you don't have
to go out and purchase vellum, though I do recommend getting a knack at
writing with a quill.  It's very enlightening!

In the construction of the <ch> as a glyph, let me call it {c1} bar {c2} so
we can talk about it in visual left-to-right order.

Start {c1} at the top, and continue the stroke downward.  When you first
touch the nib to the paper/vellum, you have two choices, either make this a
narrow stroke or a wide stroke. Since {c1} will be connected, it is usually
began as a wide stroke, which means more pressure on the nib.  The {c1}
stroke can be completed with its usual curve, but notice that the {c1}
stroke is usually heavier than the {c2} stroke, and when there is an excess
of ink, it most usually involves this particular stroke.  The author has
chosen a wide stroke, and therefore more pressure at this point than at any
other in the construction of the glyph.

What happens physically when you do this, is that there occurs an initial
outlay of ink at the pressure point, i.e., the top of the downward {c1}
stroke.  Sometimes the pen pressure and angle are such that this effect is
insignifant, yet you see hundreds of times that this is the case.  Remember
that this effect is because the author has decided beforehand that this is
the way the glyph will be written - its construction mirrors his mental
image of the ideal, or he wouldn't keep doing it the same way, time after
time.  He wants a wider stroke at the top of the initial {c1}, curving to a
taper at the end of the stroke.  Always beginning at the top and stroking
downward on {c1}.

In called up f29r randomly as a middle sample, then f5v as a random early
sample.  Interestingly enough, the second <ch> on f5v matches your previous
description.  HA!  I love it, but I'm more inclined to think this "break" in
the glyph is a product of age, not construction.  Pigment flaked off,
simply.  You can argue that, but wait....

{c1} is written first, top to bottom.  But what happens next?  Look at
thousands of these, and you'll see that the -bar- {c2} stroke is done
without lifting the pen in almost all instances.  It's a simple "left to
right bar, curve down".  This is true, not my imagination, really - not like
the aliens and the bugs that are gnawing on my toes!!!!!!  If you draw a
line along the plane of text baseline, you'll find that this author has a
tendency to draw this -bar-{c2} at an upward angle from this plane in the
majority of instances.  Some are careful, some are not, but they almost
always "peak" to the right a bit higher than the baseline of the text
itself, even when the -bar- appears to be parallel.  This is one of the key
identifiers that this is one author.  These glyphs are relatively numerous,
and this is a bad habit on his part.  (Uh oh, my description of <ch>
construction is in direct inverse of Official EVA, what to do! :-) )

There's something else here that needs to be noted in the construction.  For
some reason the author's ideal is a wide pen stroke at the beginning of top
of {c1}, culminating in a lighter and narrower tail in the down-stroke.  But
you're seeing a partial -bar- going to the right.  Remember that this
decision on the part of the writer has applied more pressure, hence more
liquid, to this particular initial point of {c1}.  We're talking 9 point
type, so capillarity usually holds the liquid in place, and it would dry in
place as well.  But connect the next stroke, the -bar-{c2} stroke while this
liquid is wet, and we drag an excess of liquid across the vellum,
left-to-right.  Liquid, not necessarily pigment, mind you, though more often
than not pigment is darker here than anywhere else.

In the black and whites we had imagery that depicted a lack of pigment in
the middle of these glyphs on several occasions, but now we have better
imagery, and a better idea that I was right all along .... ehrrm, that this
is no longer the case. I just did something I don't usually do, and called
up two more random pages of the herbal section, and in every case my
definition of construction holds true.

I grant that there are cases where this is not so, I've found them myself
and pondered them, but they are few.  I suggest that my point here is that
these are drawn ever to the ideal of the author, and that the hand in each
instance only approaches the ideal in construction.

GC

> (2) start right end of horizontal bar, go leftwards to end, left stroke
> down, lift quill slightly, move back across to right end of bar, right
> stroke down. Symptoms: even top bar, faint line linking bottom left with
> (roughly) centre of right downstroke.
> (3) start bottom left, draw left curve as careful upstroke, draw
horizontal
> bar across to far right, draw right curve as downstroke. Symptoms: even
top
> bar, but occasional ink splodginess on upstroke (where quill is pushed
> upwards).
>
> I don't remember seeing any right-stroke-first <Ch> shapes - have I missed
> any obvious ones?
>
> As for <Sh>, well...
>
> >   You've probably also noticed that the "rainbow" plume (a loose
> >arc over the <ch>), is also drawn in both directions - in one direction
it
> >is rather innocuous, but in the reversed direction rather careful.  On
that
> >theme you may also have noticed that the "caret" (^) plume also has a
very
> >rare reverse, also done carefully in that event.
>
> ...all of this sounds like a cue for a web-page full of blown-up glyphs
and
> lots of tiny arrows. :-)
>
> The more I think about this, the more I want to try to write Voynichese
> with a quill (of appropriate size and cut) and ink (of plausible colour,
> consistency, and composition) on vellum (of suitable thickness and
> smoothness) - real SCA stuff. Well, *someone's* got to do it, right? :-)
>
> However, ATM I couldn't really claim to understand the physical aspects of
> the text production even 10% as well as GC, so I've got a way to go just
> yet in my preparation... :-o
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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