Dual Paradigm

This is a different approach to the composition and parsing of Voynich vords, continuing on from the studies outlined in previous posts.

This approach applies a DUAL PARADIGM and considers vords as being blended together from both. It abandons a strict 'slot' model and instead considers a fluid array of component parts.

The two paradigm vords are CHOLDAIIN and QOKEEDY. We find these by following the line of least resistance in the permutations of glyphs. These were first described, I believe, by Patrick Feaster. They are the default vords for the ‘dialects’ Currier A and Currier B respectively.

In this current approach, vords are considered in relation to both paradigms and are seen as being composed of a mixture of elements taken from both. A typical example is a vord like [qotaiiin]. This is a combination – a hybrid – of [qot] from the QOKEEDY paradigm and [aiiin] from the CHOLDAIIN paradigm. Every vord can be assessed in this way.

Some vords are purely from one paradigm, but the majority of vords are mixed. We can make a distinction between such binaries as: pure/hybrid, simple/complex, unmixed/mixed, singular/double.

I will refer to the component parts in this type of parsing as elements rather than syllables.

In the following presentation, QOKEEDY elements are plain, while CHOLDAIIN elements are marked in blue.

Let us take a vord like: [pochedy]. This is obviously near to, and based upon, the paradigm QOKEEDY. But the element [ch] is found in CHOLDAIIN, not QOKEEDY. We therefore mark the vord:

pochedy

And we parse it by it constituent elements as: po – ch – edy.

Another example: [chokchy]

Here, [cho-] comes from CHOLDAIIN, as does the element [ch] but the gallows [k] and the final [y] are from the QOKEEDY pattern. We thus mark it as:

chokchy

And parse it: cho – k – ch – y.

Another example: [doroiin]

There is no element of this vord that needs to be attributed to the QOKEEDY paradigm. It wholly consists of elements modelled on the CHOLDAIIN paradigm. It is unmixed. We mark it as:

doroiin

This can be parsed as: dor – oiin because CHOLDAIIN itself can be parsed as: chol – daiin. Parsing is into elements. In non-hybrid vords the various elements will be from the same paradigm.

The hybridisation or mixing is conspicuous in cases of the benched gallows. In this vord for instance: [shocphedy]. We mark it as:

shocphedy

The element [sho-] comes from [cho-] and similarly the benching element [ch] in the combination glyph form [cph] is found in CHOLDAIIN and not QOKEEDY.

The parsing presents a complication because the benched gallows is inherently dual. It is a compound glyph. For clarity it could be parsed with the benching bracketed as: sho – [ch + p] – edy.

Note: benched glyph always come from the CHOLDAIIN paradigm and gallows glyphs always come from the QOKEEDY paradigm. That is one of the fundamental differences between the two.

Note that [o] and [d] might come from either paradigm, but [q] and [y] belong to QOKEEDY and [l] and the final consonants [n] (plus final [m], [g] etc.) belong to the CHOLDAIIN paradigm.

A simple vord: [shey]

It is mixed. The benched element [sh] comes from CHOLDAIIN and the suffixing element [ey] – both the [e] and the final [y] - is from QOKEEDY. We parse it [sh – ey] and mark it:

shey

Another case: [chekeey]. Only the initial [ch] comes from CHOLDAIIN. [e] always comes from QOKEEDY. The prefixing [che-] in this vord might conceivably be modelled on [cho-] from CHOLDAIIN with the [o] vowel changed to [e], and no doubt this is true, but the [e] comes from QOKEEDY. Thus:

chekeey

Conversely, in a case like [qokeol] we might suppose the vowel element [eo] is from [ee] in QOKEEDY with the [e] changed into [o], but – arguably – it is the final [l] that has occassioned that change, taking [ol] from CHOLDAIIN. Wherever we find [ol] it comes from CHOLDAIIN, not QOKEEDY. Thus:

qokeol

Another. This is straightforward: [todaiin]:

todaiin

Here is a whole line of text from <f30r.P.1;H>

okchesy.chey.shorchey.fcheody.shey.tchy.cher.d.o.shey-

Parsed:

ok – ch – esy
ch – ey
shor – ch – ey
f – ch - eody
sh - ey
t - ch - y

ch - e - r

d

o

sh - ey

Note that the free-standing glyphs [d] and [o] could belong to either paradigm.

And another from <f100r.P2.9;H>

yaiin.chekeey.chol.cholody.chos.olchor.qokeol.okeeol.cheols.al-

Parsed:

y – aiin
ch- ekeey
chol
chol-ody
chos
ol-chor
qoke-ol
kee-ol
ch-e-ols
al

* * * 

This approach opens many other lines of investigation, but in the first instance it provides a simple and consistent method for understanding the composition of vords.

In this model, there are two streams of text that interweave and overlap, but which tend to separate towards one of the two paradigms: CHOLDAIIN or QOKEEDY.

This might be a better model than hypothesing two “languages” or “dialects”. Currier A is any passage of text where the vords tend towards resolving into CHOLDAIIN, whereas Currier B is any passage of text where the vords tend towards resolving into QOKEEDY.

R. B.