VMs: ... speculating with "dairol"

[Knox Mix <knoxmix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gabriel Landini wrote:

> You may not be aware that EVA is just an arbitrary mapping of what one sees 
> into something that can be typed. Also there is no indication that an EVA 
> character is a single character in the vms.
>
> "dairol" has the pattern "abcdef" i.e. any "word" in any language with 6 
> different letters matches it. 
>
> Searching the net for matches like this is completely meaningless.
> Cheers,
>
> Gabriel


Of course. There are other questions about EVA, though.

Can we be certain there is no connection of EVA vowels to *real* vowels? 
(a = a,e,i,o, or u -- or y-as-vowel)? Some ciphers and other series of 
characters will show reasonable vowel/consonant divisions, some will 
show false vowel/consonant divisions, some (I would guess: most) will 
not be consistent from one section of text to another. If we assume the 
possibility that the structure of Voynichese straightforwardly 
represents an underlying language then we might also assume the 
possibility that EVA very approximately represents original 
vowel/consonant divisions.

As I see it, we have an instinct for deciphering speech at age three but 
none ever for deciphering writing (the extremely loose cipher of 
speech-cipher). With only talent and technology to work with, I think 
there are too many possibilities (dead letters, modifiers, multi-use, 
and so on)to explore to determine that Voynichese glyphs can not be 
resolved into pronounceable, as opposed to "somewhat pronounceable", words.

My questions are: Can the fact that EVA is somewhat pronounceable tell 
us anything helpful at all about Voynichese? Can the failure to resolve 
the glyphs into truly pronounceable words tell us anything helpful about 
Voynichese? Can the attempt be of any benefit?

Best Regards,

Knox
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list