I have previously argued that one of the main contrasts between the two verbum potentai, keywords, that I propose are the foundations of the text, is that CHOLDAIIN bifurcates and readily breaks up into smaller units, whereas QOKEEDY does not.
Moreover, I have argued that QOKEEDY cycles, but CHOLDAIIN does not.
To clarify, and correct, this:
In fact, both words CYCLE through the text. But the CHOLDAIIN cycle is bifurcated. It cycles as two words, CHOL.DAIIN. Thus:
Whereas QOKEEDY cycles as a single term:
CHOLDAIIN can be counted as one word, but by nature it bifurcates. It only appears once as CHOLDAIIN, but it permeates the text in its bifurcated form.
There is an implied word break between CHOL and DAIIN.
Strictly speaking, we should supply our verbum potentiae with their accompanying word breaks. Our keywords are, more correctly:
This is important. The word breaks are part of the scheme and cannot be overlooked.
As I am proposing it, the two words are a set of linguistic resources from which the entire text has been extrapolated, and their characteristic word breaks are part of those resources.
Note, as always, the flows of the curve and line system.
Both CHOL and DAIIN end on a backslash letter: \. It signifies: break, disruption. Stop.
In contrast, QOKEEDY ends on [y], a curve-based glyph (an [o] with a tail.) It signifies: cycle, go again, continue.
These innate features of the keywords then extend to and shape the text. The determination of word breaks in the text follows from these innate properties of the paradigmatic words.
To clarify, and correct, this:
In fact, both words CYCLE through the text. But the CHOLDAIIN cycle is bifurcated. It cycles as two words, CHOL.DAIIN. Thus:
.CHOL.DAIIN.CHOL.DAIIN.
Whereas QOKEEDY cycles as a single term:
.QOKEEDY.QOKEEDY.QOKEEDY.
CHOLDAIIN can be counted as one word, but by nature it bifurcates. It only appears once as CHOLDAIIN, but it permeates the text in its bifurcated form.
There is an implied word break between CHOL and DAIIN.
Strictly speaking, we should supply our verbum potentiae with their accompanying word breaks. Our keywords are, more correctly:
.QOKEEDY.
.CHOL.DAIIN.
This is important. The word breaks are part of the scheme and cannot be overlooked.
As I am proposing it, the two words are a set of linguistic resources from which the entire text has been extrapolated, and their characteristic word breaks are part of those resources.
Note, as always, the flows of the curve and line system.
Both CHOL and DAIIN end on a backslash letter: \. It signifies: break, disruption. Stop.
In contrast, QOKEEDY ends on [y], a curve-based glyph (an [o] with a tail.) It signifies: cycle, go again, continue.
These innate features of the keywords then extend to and shape the text. The determination of word breaks in the text follows from these innate properties of the paradigmatic words.
I will demonstrate how it operates in practice with concrete examples in subsequent posts to these pages.
An interesting – and important – question to be asked here, though, is: why does the text CYCLE the way it does?
In this aspect of my research I am indebted to the statistical studies of Patrick Feaster and his identification of what others now call “Feaster loops” in the text.
What is the basis for this phenomenon? Why does the text move in loops? Why. by my hypothesis, do the keywords cycle?
It appears that at its most fundamental level the text is a stream of the keywords extended in cycles. Why the cycles? What inherent properties of the verbum potentiae make them cycle?
It is my contention, after all, that all aspects of the text, the language, are extrapolated from the two primal words. They cycle. Why? What is it about them that makes them cycle? In what way are they inherently cyclic?
* * *
An interesting – and important – question to be asked here, though, is: why does the text CYCLE the way it does?
In this aspect of my research I am indebted to the statistical studies of Patrick Feaster and his identification of what others now call “Feaster loops” in the text.
What is the basis for this phenomenon? Why does the text move in loops? Why. by my hypothesis, do the keywords cycle?
It appears that at its most fundamental level the text is a stream of the keywords extended in cycles. Why the cycles? What inherent properties of the verbum potentiae make them cycle?
It is my contention, after all, that all aspects of the text, the language, are extrapolated from the two primal words. They cycle. Why? What is it about them that makes them cycle? In what way are they inherently cyclic?
I suspect this is a question that takes us to the heart of the entire matter.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment