Further considerations of Voynich words (vords) by means of a template. The template (based on that of Thomas Coon) has been slightly refined (compared to how it appears in the previous post) so as to be clearer and more useful. The objective, as previously explained, is not to create a model that works in every instance: it merely exposes a consistent pattern and is especially useful for the consideration of vords that do not conform.
Again, it is a remarkable fact that so many vords do conform and that it is even possible to create such a model. We can do so because one of the chief characteristics of the Voynich language is that the glyphs are heavily constrained as per their positions in vords. The spelling of vords is highly mechanical and follows rigid rules, for the most part.
The structure of vords is tripartite. The default vord - QOKEEDY - has a prefix, midfix and suffix structure. Every vord in the lexicon can be placed against this default structure to see where it conforms and where and how it deviates. Here, again, is the basic model:
Here is a straightforward case of a conforming vord, DADAM:
But here is a non-conforming vord - DAIKEODY:
What we observe here is that the vord conforms to the template for the most part but deviates from it in only one of its compartments, namely the prefix (section A). To make the vord we would need to add the glyphs [ai] to the prefix (marked in the green square.) That is, this vord does not have the usual vowels in its prefix. The vowels [a] and [i] are usually confined to later in the vord and are ordinarily restrained from appearing in the prefix (group A). This vord is an exception. We might say that elements of the midfix and suffix intrude in the prefix in this case.
Note, though, that the deviation is not severe. What we find is that no non-conforming vords deviate wildly and hopelessly from the standard. The deviation is easy to locate and easy to fix by allowing a simple exception to an otherwise prevailing rule.
Another example: KAIISHDY.
To make this vord conform we must add the glyphs [aii] between the [k] and the [sh], a place where these glyphs do not usually appear. As in our first example, the deviation concerns vowels. Here we might say that elements of the suffix have intruded into the midfix formation. Evidently, the need to create a consonant/vowel pattern overruled the normal restraints upon [a] and [i].
Another example: YCHCTHOD
To make this vord conform we merely have to allow the benched gallows [cThc] to follow the [ch] whereas usually it is constrained from doing so. The deviation is in the middle section (B) but otherwise the string of glyphs follow the default pattern. Again, the deviation is not severe. It consists of one small exception to the usual rule.
Another example: ODCHEDY
Here the deviation is confined to section A, the prefix. The string DCHEDY is conforming; all that has happened is that [o] has been added as a prefix. Note, though, that the [o] is a natural element of section A - it has not been imported from elsewhere. And the form [ol] is natural to section A and [od] may be considered a variation of it. In any case, the non-conforming vord is only a slight deviation from the model. The elements of section A have been slightly rearranged from their default sequence. The letter [o] has been freed of its normal constraints and allowed to be mobile. Again, the change involves a vowel.
I am tempted, in this case, to explain the non-conformity by simply saying [ol] has become [od], the [d] replacing the [l].
Another example: SAYFCHEDY
A case of an intruding vowel. The string SYFCHEDY is conforming but an [a] has intruded between the [s] and the [y]. The problem, though, is confined to only one section - the prefix, section A. In this case, evidently, the usual vowels in group A are not adequate and so [a] has been imported - it is normally restrained towards the end of vords. The [a] from group C joins naturally with [s] and so it is likely the source of the intruding glyph. We can say: elements of the suffix have intruded into the prefix in this case.
***
It is difficult, in fact, to find cases that deviate wildly from the paradigm. In most cases the deviation is only slight and easily explained within the terms of the model itself. In most cases the non-conformity is confined to only one section of the tripartite vord structure. The non-conforming vords mainly conform but deviate because of some exception to the rules in the shape of the prefix, midfix or suffix. In the cases above what we typically see happening is that elements from the suffix appear in the prefix or midfix. Elements typically restrained towards the end of vords are borrowed to make non-conforming exceptions in the prefix or the midfix.
R. B.
No comments:
Post a Comment