[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: De modis significandi sive grammatica speculativa


I am sorry, it will take some time to understand what you are saying,
be patient :-)

I'll rephrase one of the questions: Why some people use an uncommon
set of symbols(writing)  as a method of expression ?


On 8/31/05, steve ekwall <ekwall2@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hi all :-)
> -=se=-> info in
> <-=se=- info out
> -=se=-> (inserted below) <-=se=-
>  Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:15:39 -0400
>  From: Florin <ifthink@xxxxxxxxx>
>  Reply-To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
>  To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
>  Subject: Re: VMs: De modis significandi sive grammatica speculativa
>  Hi Jean,
>  >From what I understand they tried to demonstrate that any kind of
>  grammar could be explained based on an universal grammar set of rules.
>  The existence of an universal grammar was assumed implicitly, probably
>  as a natural context-free grammar (hence their problems). Or it was
>  vice versa, they tried to find a set of rules to prove the existence
>  of an universal grammar. This is as confused as I am myself reading
>  their works. Anyway, what they were not doing, it was building an
>  universal language/grammar, something like Esperanto. Maybe another
>  obscure group was trying to do just that.
>  I was trying to find some similarities between the Rohonczi, Hampton,
>  Seraphianus and Voynich. While I didn't studied very much the first
>  three ones, I have a feeling that their authors were/are some how
>  "wired" differently than most of the folks. Entering their worlds
>  would be difficult but not impossible as I saw/expect some consistency
>  in their works, which is largely lacking in the Voynich. Whenever I
>  find a pattern in it and I expect this to stay, something comes and
>  brakes it down  and this seems done rather deliberately.
> -=se=-> Hi Florin :-), I've tried (appearntly poorly) in the past to
> explain that the ~FoLdInG Key~ will aburptly SHUT this
> (UNcoding) system DOWN if one looses track of your letter (pointer)
> \ position(s). the ~trick~ if one could call it that, is to "*See
> The Mirror*", or rotate your "masterkey (now reformed alph.numeriac
> alphabet)" when you encounter the _larger gallows characters_.
> I think there are only 2 alpha.numeric 'substitution' areas, but the
> fact THEY can ~rotate on the fly~ (by inserting a _simple_ gallows
> figure), allows infinite @#$^!.! (confussion(s)).
> <-=se=-
>  I would have expected this to be an obfuscation(done by substitution)
>  of a franco-germano-latino-scandinavian language written with some how
>  strange symbols but this is hardly the case as there are no (as far as
>  I know) large repeating blocks of texts.
>  This means that a seed/key may be  involved and the things are getting
>  more complicated.
>  So, what this could be ? An encrypted artificial language ? A very
>  sophisticated algorithm with endless rounds of substitutions and
>  transpositions at the bit, nibble or byte/s level ? This sounds rather
>  overkill.
> -=se=-> personally, for reasons unkown to me, I think IT WAS DESIGNED
> to be "overkill" (until now), But the TIME IS NOW!. so try
> simply FolDinG &
> Flipping a KEY  on the Gallows & see how it pans out?? <-=se=- :-/?
>  Or, a very simple thing with very complex consequences.
> -=se=-> IT'S SIMPLER THAN YOU THINK !! <-=se=-
>  Regards,
>  Clueless One aka Florin :)
>  PS. Now that I wrote those down I realized two things:
>  1. Writing in a very elaborated style, a large text even with a
>  minimal number of topics, may not necessary exhibit large repeating
>  blocks of text.
>  2. There is a common thing to those codices, ... all of them are
>  written with an uncommon, unique set of symbols. Why ?
> -=se=->
> "###
>  #o*
>  ***"
> The _odd shaped symbols_ of the voynich are shaped as 'pointers' that
> point to AREAS on a simple piece of paper. THAT IS, can you point to
> UPPER left (with a symbol?), how about "\",
> Upper RIGHT (with a symbol?) how about "/"
> what a about a CENTER
> Character (with a symbol?), how about "o"... same would go for 'e'
> pointing lower _right, AND 'g' pointing to lower _left...etc.. etc..
> problem encountered here on the voynich list (computer mathmatics)
> doesn't allow for random ~swapping~ of characters... That is to say I
> am ~writing voynich~ & know I'm coming up on a WORD that should be
> 'hidden'... I swap (via Larger Gallows) to the OTHER MASTER KEY BOARD
> to the "Same Alphabet and Numerics",(anytime before I get to the
> "WORD" with a gallows on the OTHER KEY,  but now THEY ALL are in
> POSITIONS!!!!!!! This [and remember there are eight (8) gallows]
> flip too can _easily return to the 'PlAiN' TEXT with a mere BACK or
> FOWARD 'pointer'_  (c_, C_C_, or C_C_C  \,\\,\\\ etc)...
> It was with this _understanding of the folding key (and associated
> characters/pointers)_ that without even have seen the vms, I predicted
> that one should NOT find 2 gallows Side by SIDE... (!!!) I think it
> was Gabriel Landini here that pointed out (sure enough), exceptions on
> f104v.17 and f113v.21... i think I found another also on 49v.22, but
> that is 'what i call _lower case_ characters' (c_caMaM) sid eby side
> and I suppose some words could fall into a pattern to just happen to
> fit... IF they did, they probably are not ~secretive~ words etc.. (
> like the words *S_EE_* *TR_EE_* and *BL_EE_D* might not be important
> top code again.. etc..)
> <-=se=-
>  On 8/28/05, jean-yves artero <jyartero@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > Hi Florin
>  >
>  > Your post is intriguing and elliptic; here is a bit
>  > more about this book and his author:
>  >
>  > http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/8246/gramspec.html
>  > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/erfurt/
>  >
>  > "Thomas of Erfurt belonged to an interesting though
>  > somewhat obscure group of late 13th- and early
>  > 14th-century philosophers known as the speculative
>  > grammarians or Modistae. The term 'speculative
>  > grammarian' is ambiguous because it is also used by
>  > historians of medieval philosophy to refer to
>  > 12th-century Parisian grammar masters such as William
>  > of Conches, Peter Helias, and Ralph of Beauvais, who
>  > systematically revised the ancient grammars of Donatus
>  > and Priscian -- textbooks which had been used to teach
>  > Latin to schoolboys -- in order to produce a universal
>  > semantics.[7]  The two groups are related, as it turns
>  > out, since the latter-day grammarians adopted many of
>  > the theories as well as the universalizing tendencies
>  > of their 12th-century predecessors. Foremost among
>  > them was the theory of the modi significandi, or modes
>  > of signifying. The term 'Modistae' or 'Modist'
>  > properly refers to the later group."
>  >
>  > Interesting...but somewhat obscure group, ey, why not?
>  >
>  > Jean
>  >
>  > --- Florin <ifthink@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>  >
>  > > Could it be that the vms author was inspired by this
>  > > book written by
>  > > Thomas of Erfurt ?
>  > >
>  > > Regards,
>  > > Florin
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>  Hope this finds you & all out there well :-)
> I KNOW I've said this many times over in the past, but I guess
> some may just not "get-it" yet... (sorry i'm so inept here) :-/
> (see archieves here)
> Best to you & yours
> -=se=-
> steve (don't need a computer/ ~just folded paper~) ekwall :-)
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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