[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
VMs: fake letters
On the topic "Lookalike encipherment"
Nick Pelling wrote:
. . . the issue of whether,
if EVA <o> is a fake letter solely used to construct verbose digraphs
(like qo, or, ol, etc), two adjacent fake <o>s would elide into a single
one - ie, should <qo.ol> contract to <qol>? Fortunately, <qol> only
seems to occur in pages where free-standing and word-initial <l>s occur,
which suggests that whatever <qo> and <ol> represent, <qo> cannot be
followed by <ol>.
From what followed, I think you are referring to the issue I brought
up. If so I did not say <o> is necessarily fake. I considered the
possibility that it is occasionally inferential whether fake elsewhere
or not. Not just <o>. Any letter that would be one of a double if
written. Writing it or not would not change the meaning. <qol> for a
demo was not the best choice but to race a slow horse we do not know a
letter (<l> for example) is free-standing in all positions or in any
position adjacent another letter or across a space from another letter.
Simialrly, there are related issues with <cho> and <chol> in Voynichese
(particularly in Currier A, IIRC): I strongly suspect that <ch> and
<cho> are tokens that code for quite separate things, and that <chol>
can only decompose into <ch.ol>, never <cho[o]l>:
I think so, too. At the time I thought of inferred letters. I did not
consider <cho> or <qok> or even <cth>. It was after a first look at a
transcript and seeing (part of) what everyone sees. I, then attempted to
sort out the bigrams. Isolating those I thought to be most obvious left
quite a few others in between (the most prominent of which I took to be
"real" bigrams), many singletons and some longer strings. If I remember
right this left (sorry about that) only a few trigrams, four or five
4-grams and maybe one longer string -- and most of the singletons -- and
some dubious digrams. Well, they all were dubious but these more so.
Anyway, I had about the right number of different elements to fill the
used portion of a grid with an alphabet running across the top and at
the side. I also made a frequency table for sequences. I knew some of
these could be equivalent to, say <er> and <re> in English and that any
18th Century cryptanalyst would have resolved the method if it were
used. I knew I would not recognize a non-English script if it jumped
out. No, not even a second very simple cipher of English behind the
outer cipher. I knew I had gone in without sufficient familiarity with
the script (<qok>, etc.). I never had any illusions about "solving" the
script. I only wanted to get a better look at it. The repetition of
n-grams and the lack of repetition of words and phrases, is a feature
that interests me now.
The circumstantial evidence for implied/inferred letters is somewhat
less than for the existence of a crenel or a knothole which we can
determine by surrounding structure. The possibility that there is one or
two or more does not have to lead anywhere; it only needs sit in the
wings in the event it might serve a purpose in one scheme or another. If
you have proven to your satisfaction they do not exist (tried to think
of a substitution for "exist") I doubt there will be any loss.
>ie, that <cho> can
> never be followed by <ol> in the underlying language.
We have not read all the possible literature but it would seem so if
there is an underlying language.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: