Parsing [or]

What might [or] be as a single stand-alone vord? How do we present it on our vord template? The more general problem is how to map vords that could be charted on the template in several ways? Which is it? The problem is acute with short formations like [or] or similar.

For a start, [or] might be just a stand-alone prefix, as here:

Or a stand-alone suffix, as here:

Or a combination of a vowel from compartment A and a final [r] from compartment C, the [o] being a prefix.

Then there are other possibilities, such as this:

* * *

The first rule to apply, I think, is the last glyph in any vord is a final from compartment C. This means that we parse backwards, beginning with the final letter. The assumption is: vords end in glyphs from compartment C.

Assumption: in [or] the [r] is the final [r] from compartment C, namely the [r] that forces a word break. It should properly be written [r.]

[r.] final. Wherever the [o] comes from the [r.] is final from compartment C.

If we insist the [r] is final [r.] then there are three possibilities:

A second rule we might entertain is that, where possible, the CV or VC combination within compartments is preserved. Where possible, preserve syllables within rather than across compartments.

 
By this reasoning, then, the vord [or.] is a stand-alone suffix:

 

We can see it behaving as such in the text.

<f3r.P.15;H> tsheoarom.shor.or.chor.olchsy.chom.otchom-oporar-

On any fair reading of the string of vords "shor.or.chor." the [or] is behaving as a suffix. But then, by our template and these rule, [shor] [or] and [chor] are all free standing suffixes.

The matter is confused in other contexts. In this line from page 15 for instance:

<f15v.P.2;H> chor.or.oro.r.aiin.cthy.kain.dar-

This string of vords seems to be demonstrating that [or] can be either a suffix or a prefix.

We need not insist that a vord is one formation or another. The text could be demonstrating the fact that formations are mutable. We cannot lift vords out of context. The [r.] i necessarily final because it forces a word break but the [o-] might be one of three possibilities in any given context. The best way to depict it without a specific context then is as above:

We can only be more specific about the vowel [o] and know which of the three options it is in a given context. The only thing of which we can be sure is that the [r.] is final, i.e. from compartment C. Is the [o] from A, B or C? This can depend upon context. Without context, my inclination is to naturally assign the [o] to compartment C in order to preserve the syllable formation VC.

Some confusion could be avoided if there was a convention by which mark initial glyphs as distinct from finals. Assuredly, initial [y] is not the same as final [y]. We might capitalize it like in German nouns. Y or y. Thus, where [.or.] is, in fact, [o-r] and the [o] is a prefix from compartment A we would mark it as [.Or.] indicating an initial [o].

R. B.

Alternative template

 

Here is another perhaps clearer way of presenting much the same schema as the template used on previous pages. Different presentations of the paradigm give emphasis to different habits and structures but they all describe the same processes, slippery though they are.

Any paradigm like this is useless without an accompanying set of rules. The model only depicts the elements from which vords are made. How they are made, how the elements combine, is governed by rules, or rather probabilities.

Yes, the model is misleading because it suggests all possibilities are equal, but it is only intended as a guide to the resources of vords. In fact, some possible combinations are far more likely than others. Indeed.

The template is not intended as a vord generator, but even so I don’t see it as a fault in the model that it might generate non-vords, or non-extant vords.

This presentation fails to underline that QOKEEDY is the default vord and that the tripartite consonant-vowel sequence is derived from the default. Once again, the basis of this vord paradigm is the observation that the default vord QOKEEDY is made of three syllables each with conosonant/vowel: qo - kee - dy. I take that as the basic pattern, the matrix. 

R. B.

Line 7 page 1v.

Line 7 page 1v requires special attention.

qo.ol.choeee.cheol.dol.cthey-

It was noted long ago that it marks the first appearance of the glyph [q].

Remarkably, the glyph [q] – so characteristic of the Voynich text – is entirely lacking from page 1 recto. We first meet it on page 1 verso.

We first meet it as the syllable vord .qo. which thereafter is a common prefix.

* * *

The next appearance of [q] is on page 2 recto, line 3 which begins:

qotaiin-cthey.y-chor.chy.ydy-chaiin-

This is followed by single instances in lines 8, 9 and 10 on that page:

kydain.shaiin.qoy.s.shol.fodan-yksh.olsheey.daiildy- dlssho.kol.sheey.qokey.ykody.so-chol.yky.dain.daiirol- qoky.cholaiin.shol.sheky.daiin-cthey.keol.saiin.saiin-

Let’s look at all these instances as a group:

qo
qotaiin
qoy
qokey
qoky

We see that [q] is connected to [o] from the outset. Moreover, [qo-] is connected to the gallows letters [k] and [t] from the outset.

* * *

Turning the page to page 2 verso, we find a feature line at line 2:
 

 kcho.kchy.sho.shol.qotcho.loeees.qoty-chor.daiin-

Two cases of a [qo-] vord.

 

* * * 

 

It seems that the glyph [q], specifically in its usual form as [qo-], has the function of prefixing the gallows glyphs. When it is introduced on page 2. it is first announced as a stand-alone unit [.qo.] but then it is immediately applied to prefixing the gallows letters.  

We can map all of this on our vord paradigm. It concerns formations in compartments A and B. It is unclear why [qo] is not introduced until one complete page into the text.

 

R. B.