Glyph Q

In a previous post I attributed the various glyphs found in the Voynich language to four distinct sets. See here. But this division leaves the status of the glyph <q> unresolved. The <q> glyph does not fit obviously into any of these glyph sets. That is:

*It is not constructed according to the c-curve and backslash foundations of most of the glyphs,

*It is not part of the system used to generate the four gallows letters, or their bench variants.

*Nor is it part of the geometric set.

Its placement is difficult. It might be outside of these sets altogether and stand alone as a separate design with a special function.

Considering the options, though, it seems most likely that it belongs to the set of so-called gallows letters and needs to be investigated in that context.

The gallows set is very neat as it stands: four glyphs, one-legged, two-legged, one-looped, two-looped. I have argued here that they are essentially letters on stilts. Viewed thus, we can see that the <q> glyph form is found in the gallows glyph designs where it is, so to speak, raised up, elevated, lifted up onto stilts.

From this I conclude that it appears to be part of the same conception as the gallows glyph set.

This raises the question, though, whether or not <q> stands alone in this respect or needs to be considered along with <o> with which it is almost always connected in the Voynich text. Arguably, this is what we see in the elevated letters: not just the <q> form but also the <o> that goes with it.

The connection between <q> and <o> is not invariable, but it is very strong all the same.There is surely some rule afoot in the text whereby <q> and <o> are conjoined, with few exceptions. It would seem to follow then that this strong connection continues into the design and conception of the gallows glyphs.

Again: the so-called gallows glyphs are elevated letters, literally letters on stilts. It is tempting to think that perhaps the design principle of the gallows glyph set began with the <q> glyph and the elevated forms (on stilts) are specifically designed to change the elevation of the <qo> bi-glyph in the text from the line to superscript.

The <q> glyph is plainly not part of the set of geometric glyphs such as we find in the glyph sequences on page f57v. Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is geometric in itself. The design of the loop in the glyph is deliberately angular. It marks a triangle of 45 degrees. Stylized, the <q> and the <o> are like a circle and the triangle, or a circle and a quadrant of a circle. Or perhaps it is not the triangle we should notice but the cross? (Are the basic forms a circle and a cross?)

In terms of behavior, <q> seems remarkably redundant. It appears as a prefix for a host of words, but in nearly all cases if we remove the <q> we are left with a valid Voynich word. There have been many suggestions the glyph is a null.

From the outset I have felt - a hunch - that the glyph <q> is the key to the Voynich language. It is ubiquitous and yet it is anomalous. That says "key!" to me. It even looks a bit like a key. (Actually, it looks a bit like a flag or a pennant, a marker.)

R. B.