What conclusions might we draw from the very fact a vord paradigm such as I have been using even works at all? It tells us that a large proportion of vords have a consistent internal structure. There is a strong pattern of behavior. How to think about it? What is going on? To some extent this is once again a quest for appropriate metaphors.
The obvious thing to note, surely, is the centrality of the core of vords, which is to say the gallows group of glyphs. In the default vord they are central. In fact, we might say that vords are built around them. Vords are built from the core out. We start with the core and then other elements are added before and after. These other elements serve the core and not the other way around.
So we find, sure enough, that the gallows glyph set – such a characteristic feature of the Voynich text – is at the heart of Voynichese. It is all about the gallows glyphs. If these glyphs appear in Latin manuscripts as largely decorative motifs, here they are far from decorative, they have a central importance.
We ought therefore concentrate on learning more about the gallows glyphs and what they might represent.
In our model we can at least take them to be consonants. At the centre of every (conforming) vord there is one or more of these special consonants. The language is built around them. The language is a vehicle for them. If we knew what these elevated glyphs – essentially the four [k, t, f, p] - represent we would unlock the central mystery.
(As consonants it is tempting to suspect they might be double consonants.)
Even more, among the glyphs the gallow [k] is the paradigm. If we just knew what [k] represents, all (or a great deal) would be revealed.
This is a useful discovery – except for the fact that we don’t know what [k] represents. But our model reduces the problem to that one central conundrum: what is [k]? Confronted by all the complexity of the Voynich text, we can, in the end, point to this one glyph – [k] – and ask ‘What does this mean?’ It is the key. We can reduce the problem to that.
Whatever [k] might mean, in the default model a vord is created around it. It is, so to say, protected or fortified front and back. It is fortified (encircled, surrounded etc.) by a prefix at the front and a suffix at the rear. If the core is king, it has a retinue.
Conceivably, we could reduce the whole text just to the cores of vords because that constitutes the essence of the text. But the language comes into being because these cores – for whatever reason - need to be packaged in protective shells. They don’t stand alone, they are embodied within vords with glyphs buffering them before and after.
First, the packaging is in vowels. In the paradigm, the core consonant is protected before and after with vowels. These are the ‘mantle’ layers in Stolfi’s model. The core [k] is packaged as [okee] which is to say VCV.
Then an outer garment is added, the so-called ‘crust’. The alternations of consonants and vowels is maintained. The ‘crust’ is typically hard consonants. The mantle is like an undergarment and the crust is like a coat. To continue the analogy, [k] cannot stand naked, but must be clothed. Clothing the naked core is what makes a vord.
The crust, the coat, marks the boundary of the word breaks, one core-carrying unit from another.
No pictures are necessary, but just to underline the analogy:
The obvious thing to note, surely, is the centrality of the core of vords, which is to say the gallows group of glyphs. In the default vord they are central. In fact, we might say that vords are built around them. Vords are built from the core out. We start with the core and then other elements are added before and after. These other elements serve the core and not the other way around.
So we find, sure enough, that the gallows glyph set – such a characteristic feature of the Voynich text – is at the heart of Voynichese. It is all about the gallows glyphs. If these glyphs appear in Latin manuscripts as largely decorative motifs, here they are far from decorative, they have a central importance.
We ought therefore concentrate on learning more about the gallows glyphs and what they might represent.
In our model we can at least take them to be consonants. At the centre of every (conforming) vord there is one or more of these special consonants. The language is built around them. The language is a vehicle for them. If we knew what these elevated glyphs – essentially the four [k, t, f, p] - represent we would unlock the central mystery.
(As consonants it is tempting to suspect they might be double consonants.)
Even more, among the glyphs the gallow [k] is the paradigm. If we just knew what [k] represents, all (or a great deal) would be revealed.
This is a useful discovery – except for the fact that we don’t know what [k] represents. But our model reduces the problem to that one central conundrum: what is [k]? Confronted by all the complexity of the Voynich text, we can, in the end, point to this one glyph – [k] – and ask ‘What does this mean?’ It is the key. We can reduce the problem to that.
Whatever [k] might mean, in the default model a vord is created around it. It is, so to say, protected or fortified front and back. It is fortified (encircled, surrounded etc.) by a prefix at the front and a suffix at the rear. If the core is king, it has a retinue.
Conceivably, we could reduce the whole text just to the cores of vords because that constitutes the essence of the text. But the language comes into being because these cores – for whatever reason - need to be packaged in protective shells. They don’t stand alone, they are embodied within vords with glyphs buffering them before and after.
First, the packaging is in vowels. In the paradigm, the core consonant is protected before and after with vowels. These are the ‘mantle’ layers in Stolfi’s model. The core [k] is packaged as [okee] which is to say VCV.
Then an outer garment is added, the so-called ‘crust’. The alternations of consonants and vowels is maintained. The ‘crust’ is typically hard consonants. The mantle is like an undergarment and the crust is like a coat. To continue the analogy, [k] cannot stand naked, but must be clothed. Clothing the naked core is what makes a vord.
The crust, the coat, marks the boundary of the word breaks, one core-carrying unit from another.
No pictures are necessary, but just to underline the analogy:
That's what a vord is: it is a well-dressed gallows glyph. But again, what is it that is being clothed? What are the gallows glyphs? One of the useful outcomes of looking at the text through a vord paradigm is that it draws attention to this most central of questions.
R. B.
No comments:
Post a Comment