My own studies now lead me to the same conclusion.
In the previous post to this I gave a sketch of how the Labels are formed from the two verbum potentiae, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
The implications of that analysis, which I will outline in this post, are that Labels display a more primitive, less developed form of Voynichese than does the running text.
To recap:
To make Labels, remove the [q] from QOKEEDY and convert the final [y] to an [o]. Thus: OKEEDO.
For the other paradigm, remove the [ch] from CHOLDAIIN.
These are the paradigmatic forms used to generate the Labels.
In both cases the initial glyph is dropped and this places an emphasis upon the glyph [o].
Labels, to reiterate, are all about the glyph [o].
We find a disproportionate number of Labels beginning [o-] or [y-] or [ok-] or [yk-], all prefixes from OKEEDO (YKEEDY).
Here we will consider the transformations of the QOKEEDY paradigm in more detail:
Rather than [q] being “dropped” or “omitted” from QOKEEDY, we could suppose that it is the other way around:
[q] has been added to OKEEDY in the formation of the running text.
There is a compelling reason supporting this. Without the [q] the keyword has symmetry.
To find the primitive form, though, the Labels tell us that when [q] is dropped, [k] tends to change to [t].
Let us take this as the primitive state. The original letter is [t]. [k] is a modification.
The primitive form is thus:
This form, let us note, is PALINDROMIC. This fact is obscured if we add the [q].
True, the gallows [t] and the [d] are different (or seem so?), but otherwise there is symmetry, and the type of symmetry is properly described as palindromic.
It is more likely, I contend, that the symmetry of the word is an inherent and basic configuration, and that the added [q] is a development that breaks (or modifies) the symmetry.
It is likely that the transformations go as follows:
OTEEDO – the primitive form
When the [q] is added at the start, the [o] at the end takes a tail, i.e. becomes a [y]. But before the [q] there was a final [o]. This changes to [y] when the [q] prefix is introduced.
Moreover, the [t] changes to [k], and the paradigm QOKEEDY is born.
That is, the gallows glyph changes and the start and finish of the configuration are modified to:
To summarize:
Start with OTEEDO.
When you add an initial [q] the following happens:
*The [t] changes to [k]
*The final [o] changes to [y].
All of these changes go together. [q] brings about these changes.
The net effect of the changes is to distract attention from the primacy of [o]. And the innate symmetry of the word is obscured.
But it is not obscured if the reader understands that [q] has been added to the initial [o] – knows the function of [q] - and that the final [y] is equivalent to [o].
A reader familiar with the script would still recognize the symmetry. It has only been obscured from we who don’t know the rules. The modification is not severe. OTEEDO can still be seen (or heard) in QOKEEDY. (Remember, EVA [y] is an [o].)
The symmetries of CHOLDAIIN are admittedly more complex, but consider this configuration:
Remove the ligature from [ch] and it becomes [ee].
Drop the termination glyph [n] and we have:
These symmetries underline the double vowel at the start matching the double vowel at the end. The [a] emerges as a variation on [o]. At the root level this paradigm is:
When the ligature is added to the [ee] and it becomes [ch] the following happens:
*The second [o] becomes [a]
*The second [ee] becomes [ii]
*The [n] is introduced to bring the [ii] sequence to an end.
(The ligature, that is, introduces the backslash-based glyph forms.)
As with QOKEEDY, where the transforming influence of [q] is absent, so in Labels the [ch] has been (largely) dropped from CHOLDAIIN and we encounter the paradigm in its primitive configurations.
This is what is characteristic, and different, about ‘Labelese’ – Labels are generated from the more primitive forms of the paradigms. In the running text we find a more developed, modified or adapted version of the paradigms.
Again: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN are the paradigms (verbum potentiae) upon which the running text has been based, or from which it has been extracted. But these, it emerges, are developments of more primitive configurations which are more plainly symmetric and palindromic.
The fact that these keywords are, in their primitive configurations, characteristically palindromic takes, us, I believe, to the very heart of the language.
We have uncovered two verbum potentiae, two paradigmatic terms, upon which the whole text is based.
But now, looking further, we have uncovered the true nature of these terms. In short, they are palindromes.
This is obscured by the glyph system and certain developments, but, in their roots our two paradigms are palindromes.
We can see this in the LABELS where the primitive forms (without [q] and the ligatured [ch]) prevail.
In Currier A and B – the running version of the language - the [q] has been added to create QOKEEDY and the ligature of [ch] has been added to create CHOLDAIIN, and these have then be used to compose the running text.
Again: the Labels give us the primitive forms. These have been modified, evidently for the purposes of writing the running text.
It emerges that the Voynich language is, at its very deepest and most profound levels, palindromic. It is founded, ultimately, upon a set of palindromes.
I regard this as a significant discovery. We finally get to the bottom of the matter.
(The words “bottom” and “matter” are palindromic in the Voynich manner, by the way. And so is “manner”. They can be bifurcated so that the prefix reflects the suffix backwards, and vice versa. Mirroring. Palindromic. You get the idea…)
At its core Voynichese is palindromic.
R.B.
To make Labels, remove the [q] from QOKEEDY and convert the final [y] to an [o]. Thus: OKEEDO.
For the other paradigm, remove the [ch] from CHOLDAIIN.
These are the paradigmatic forms used to generate the Labels.
In both cases the initial glyph is dropped and this places an emphasis upon the glyph [o].
Labels, to reiterate, are all about the glyph [o].
We find a disproportionate number of Labels beginning [o-] or [y-] or [ok-] or [yk-], all prefixes from OKEEDO (YKEEDY).
* * *
Here we will consider the transformations of the QOKEEDY paradigm in more detail:
Rather than [q] being “dropped” or “omitted” from QOKEEDY, we could suppose that it is the other way around:
[q] has been added to OKEEDY in the formation of the running text.
There is a compelling reason supporting this. Without the [q] the keyword has symmetry.
To find the primitive form, though, the Labels tell us that when [q] is dropped, [k] tends to change to [t].
Let us take this as the primitive state. The original letter is [t]. [k] is a modification.
The primitive form is thus:
OTEEDO
This form, let us note, is PALINDROMIC. This fact is obscured if we add the [q].
True, the gallows [t] and the [d] are different (or seem so?), but otherwise there is symmetry, and the type of symmetry is properly described as palindromic.
* * *
It is more likely, I contend, that the symmetry of the word is an inherent and basic configuration, and that the added [q] is a development that breaks (or modifies) the symmetry.
It is likely that the transformations go as follows:
OTEEDO – the primitive form
When the [q] is added at the start, the [o] at the end takes a tail, i.e. becomes a [y]. But before the [q] there was a final [o]. This changes to [y] when the [q] prefix is introduced.
Moreover, the [t] changes to [k], and the paradigm QOKEEDY is born.
That is, the gallows glyph changes and the start and finish of the configuration are modified to:
[Q]OKEED[Y]
To summarize:
Start with OTEEDO.
When you add an initial [q] the following happens:
*The [t] changes to [k]
*The final [o] changes to [y].
All of these changes go together. [q] brings about these changes.
The net effect of the changes is to distract attention from the primacy of [o]. And the innate symmetry of the word is obscured.
But it is not obscured if the reader understands that [q] has been added to the initial [o] – knows the function of [q] - and that the final [y] is equivalent to [o].
A reader familiar with the script would still recognize the symmetry. It has only been obscured from we who don’t know the rules. The modification is not severe. OTEEDO can still be seen (or heard) in QOKEEDY. (Remember, EVA [y] is an [o].)
* * *
The symmetries of CHOLDAIIN are admittedly more complex, but consider this configuration:
Remove the ligature from [ch] and it becomes [ee].
Drop the termination glyph [n] and we have:
EEOL DAII
These symmetries underline the double vowel at the start matching the double vowel at the end. The [a] emerges as a variation on [o]. At the root level this paradigm is:
EEOL DOEE
When the ligature is added to the [ee] and it becomes [ch] the following happens:
*The second [o] becomes [a]
*The second [ee] becomes [ii]
*The [n] is introduced to bring the [ii] sequence to an end.
(The ligature, that is, introduces the backslash-based glyph forms.)
As with QOKEEDY, where the transforming influence of [q] is absent, so in Labels the [ch] has been (largely) dropped from CHOLDAIIN and we encounter the paradigm in its primitive configurations.
* * *
This is what is characteristic, and different, about ‘Labelese’ – Labels are generated from the more primitive forms of the paradigms. In the running text we find a more developed, modified or adapted version of the paradigms.
Again: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN are the paradigms (verbum potentiae) upon which the running text has been based, or from which it has been extracted. But these, it emerges, are developments of more primitive configurations which are more plainly symmetric and palindromic.
* * *
The fact that these keywords are, in their primitive configurations, characteristically palindromic takes, us, I believe, to the very heart of the language.
We have uncovered two verbum potentiae, two paradigmatic terms, upon which the whole text is based.
But now, looking further, we have uncovered the true nature of these terms. In short, they are palindromes.
This is obscured by the glyph system and certain developments, but, in their roots our two paradigms are palindromes.
We can see this in the LABELS where the primitive forms (without [q] and the ligatured [ch]) prevail.
In Currier A and B – the running version of the language - the [q] has been added to create QOKEEDY and the ligature of [ch] has been added to create CHOLDAIIN, and these have then be used to compose the running text.
Again: the Labels give us the primitive forms. These have been modified, evidently for the purposes of writing the running text.
It emerges that the Voynich language is, at its very deepest and most profound levels, palindromic. It is founded, ultimately, upon a set of palindromes.
I regard this as a significant discovery. We finally get to the bottom of the matter.
(The words “bottom” and “matter” are palindromic in the Voynich manner, by the way. And so is “manner”. They can be bifurcated so that the prefix reflects the suffix backwards, and vice versa. Mirroring. Palindromic. You get the idea…)
At its core Voynichese is palindromic.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment