Re: VMs: Faces at the roots

[Nick Pelling <nickpelling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wayne,

At 18:30 26/04/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> The problem I face is that I now know that there were precisely these 
> kinds of codes in the early 1600's at least; forms of binary encoding 
> intermixed with nulls at a ration of 5 or so.

The majority of the dates suggested for the VMs lie far closer to 1500 (or 
earlier): and a century plus can be a long time in cryptography... many 
people proposing later dates end up concluding that the VMs was made to 
look like it was older, which can be quite a weak argument. :-o

> But all the meaning was already in the document and none is in the labels.

This is not too far removed from the idea of the VMs' entire coding system 
as an embellished number code. However, though VMs words do have a lot of 
apparent internal structure (in generally the same kind of way that, for 
example, Roman numerals do), they resisted our attempts to read them as 
numbers (nulls or no nulls). Tiltman suggested decades ago that the "ii" in 
<daiin> might be partially concealed Roman numerals: but then what of "ee" 
in <qoteedy>?

Incidentally, Steve Ekwall suggested (something to the effect) that the 
labels in the zodiac pages contained a set of 8 x 30-letter substitution 
alphabets, with the nymphs' arms and legs posed to indicate which part of 
the label was the actual letter (& so with the remainder of the label being 
nulls). Just so you know there's often nothing new under the sun. :-)

> I'll not write in again for a while.  I respect that there isn't time 
> enough in the day for folks to wade through this much.  Unfortunately for 
> you guys, I am in an energized state about the VMS currently.

Energized is good! Stay energized! :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


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