In a recent post I offered a tentative model for approaching the Voynich language. The upshot of the model is that the language should be seen as LISTS of FORMULAE presented not in tabular form but in prose, this dressed up as “the language of the nymphs.” I rarely undertake detailed textual studies myself. There are any number of computational and statistical and other studies; the challenge is to find a conceptual framework in which what is observed makes sense. My model attempts to do so.
From the outset my conviction has been that our problem is not a lack of data but a lack of a proper conceptual frame in which to place the data. Accumulating more and more data is not going to move us beyond the impasse. Not enough effort is put into understanding what it might all mean. Indeed, for reasons I don’t understand – other than some sort of scientistic puritanism – there are those who positively frown on any speculation as to what the data means and actively refrain from making calls.
Some researchers – linguists in the main - seem intent on presenting their evidence in a form as incomprehensible as possible, just in case some layman might dare to wonder what it amounts to. A recent Voynich conference only accepted papers that contained no speculation about the nature of the data whatsoever! LOL. Logophobia – fear of ideas.
A worse problem is that much excellent work gets no attention at all. There are highly illuminating studies buried in the literature, ignored and overlooked. Few people are keen to trawl through it all looking for coherent conclusions. It is very likely, I suspect, that everything we need to find a solution to the text is already abroad, but too many researchers live in intellectual ghettos and never join the dots.
From the outset my conviction has been that our problem is not a lack of data but a lack of a proper conceptual frame in which to place the data. Accumulating more and more data is not going to move us beyond the impasse. Not enough effort is put into understanding what it might all mean. Indeed, for reasons I don’t understand – other than some sort of scientistic puritanism – there are those who positively frown on any speculation as to what the data means and actively refrain from making calls.
Some researchers – linguists in the main - seem intent on presenting their evidence in a form as incomprehensible as possible, just in case some layman might dare to wonder what it amounts to. A recent Voynich conference only accepted papers that contained no speculation about the nature of the data whatsoever! LOL. Logophobia – fear of ideas.
A worse problem is that much excellent work gets no attention at all. There are highly illuminating studies buried in the literature, ignored and overlooked. Few people are keen to trawl through it all looking for coherent conclusions. It is very likely, I suspect, that everything we need to find a solution to the text is already abroad, but too many researchers live in intellectual ghettos and never join the dots.
* * *
An excellent new study has been self-published by Daniel Emlyn-Jones. It is largely consonant with my own studies and covers matter that are also important to my proposed model. Dr Emlyn-Jones sees the work as an astrological catalogue. He arrives at this conclusion through a painstaking study (mapping) of labels. As he observes, labels (of plants, stars etc) reappear in lists of self-same or similar vords in various clusters throughout the text. When he asks how a text might behave in this way he concludes that it is a catalogue, or index of names, proper nouns.
He asks the question I asked. He notes:
“Such information may have been better presented in a table, but for some reason the authors chose to write it out in a prose-like form…”
And he makes the astute observation:
“If someone were left with a Debenham’s catalogue or a shipping forecast, it may be difficult to link it to English!”
By my account data that might have been better presented in a table has been laid out like running prose because it is being presented as the language of the nymphs. As my model has it:
The text has been shaped by the literary device of the “language of the nymphs”. The nymphs are shown doing the measuring, weighing and collecting the data that appears as the text.
It is the nymphs who measure and collect data on the elements of the cosmos in the celestial and terrestrial realms.
Tables of data have been presented as a running text as if the “figures” (vords) are spoken by the nymphs. We find lists of vords arranged to look like a written text because the content is being presented as knowledge gained from the nymphs.
The difference is that Dr Emlyn-Jones sees lists of names - especially star names. An objection to this is that Voynich vords tend towards a uniform length. There are conspicuously few short and long words. Models of procedural generation suggest a system of nine or ten volvelles, and thus vords are restrained from being longer than ten letters (with very few exceptions). Names - proper nouns - however would be expected to have a greater variation in length. Star names in any language - say Greek or Arabic - are not so well-behaved that they congregate around five letters long and don't contain names longer than ten letters.
Yet there is a possible explanation for this. By my model, as also Dr Emlyn-Jone's conjectures, the plaintext consisted of data set out in tables. I maintain that certain peculiar features of the text are the result of moving data from tables into a running prose-like text. But if the data was set out in tables then it is possible long words have been abbreviated in order to fit neatly into the cells of the tables. This would be a strong motive for a system of abbreviations.
importantly, in my model vords are formulae and essentially non-linguistic. In Dr Emlyn-Jone's account vords are real words - names - and presumably have phonic values. He sees it more as a natural language that we fail to recognize because of the way it is presented. I have been more persuaded by the highly artificial tripartite internal structure of vords which suggest to me formulae of some sort that we fail to recognize because of the script in which they're written.
Almost certainly, my model is wrong on many points. But Dr Emlyn-Jone's work persuades me that it is not radically wrong, and is in fact substantially correct on key matters. The text consists of lists, catalogues. It is presented not in tabular form but in running prose because it is being presented as data collected by the nymphs.
Much study seems stuck in a language versus encryption polarity. But the language proponents are misled by the appearance of prose. Rather than prose, the text consists of lists. Real words, very little grammar. It is surprising how rarely this has been considered as an explanation for what we see in the text - tight spelling, loose grammar. Few repeated phrases. Many repeated words and similar words in serial repetition. These most basic characteristics of the Voynich text can be explained if it is a catalogue or set of lists that would normally be in tabular form.
The word I want to use to describe the nature of the text as a whole is survey. Whether the vords are measures, coordinates, Llulian "figures" or whether they are star names and herb names - I would also insist on toponyms - what we see in the Voynich manuscript is a survey. It is probably not an expository text. It is a survey.
You can purchase a copy of Dr Emlyn-Jone's work at Amazon. It is highly recommended. Unlike many other language studies of the Voynich ms. it does not disrespect readers by being jargonized and impenetrable. It is clear, cogent, logical, well argued and, better still, light-hearted. The kindle edition is only $2!
R. B.
No comments:
Post a Comment