On Choldaiin

Here I address an objection that might be made to my hypothesis.

To recap: I propose that the Voynich text is based entirely upon only two words: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.

I make much of the fact that the probabilities of the glyphs lead us to these words. This is remarkable in itself. It is not what occurs in natural languages. In English, the most common letter E prefers to be followed by R, which prefers to be followed by A, and A by N, and so on. This does not spell out a common English word.

To my knowledge no natural language is so convenient that its letter probabilities resolve in a valid word.

Imagine if the probabilities of the English alphabet resolved into the word ‘CHAUCER’ or ‘SUPERMARKET’. It would be remarkable indeed.

In Voynichese, this happens not once, but twice.

The probabilities of Currier B lead to the word: QOKEEDY. The probabilities of Currier A lead to the word: CHOLDAIIN.

Both of these are valid Voynich words found in the text.

In a natural text this procedure leads to nonsense words. In the Voynich text the procedure leads to Voynich words.

What are the chances?

It is from this starting point that I have advanced the proposal that QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN are paradigms, model words – two verbum potentiae upon which the text is based.

If we can collapse the text into these two words, we can expand the text from these two words.

* * *  

However, there is the objection, thus:

“But CHOLDAIIN only appears once in the text!”

I am claiming that it is a keyword, but it only appears once, in an insignificant context on page 17. It might be a valid word, but not a common or important one. How can it be a keyword if it only appears once, without any fanfare?

It would assist my case if these two keywords were emblazened in red ink on a prominent page. But they are not.

QOKEEDY offers no obstacle, though. There are over 300 cases, albeit all of them – every one of them - in Currier B. It is prolific – befitting a keyword.

But CHOLDAIIN only yields one match, on 17r. It seems an unlikely candidate for a keyword.

The answer to the objection is this:

In the dual paradigm system I am proposing it is the very nature of CHOLDAIIN – as a paradigm – to bifurcate, and to further break up into smaller parts. This is not typical of QOKEEDY. This is one of the important contrasts between the two words. CHOLDAIIN is easily divisible, while QOKEEDY – with its triune structure – adheres.

Given that, we need to observe that both [chol] and [daiin] are among the most common words in the manuscript. Between them, they make up a generous portion of the text on their own.

[chol] appears nearly 400 times as a stand alone word, and [daiin] 860+ times, making it the most common word of all.

Moreover, the form [chol daiin] as two words is found over 30 times.

So, while the complete word CHOLDAIIN occurs only once, it is abundant in bifurcated forms. 

* * * 

I also offer the following as explicit evidence that CHOLDAIIN (and its component parts) are being used as paradigmatic resources in the construction of the text.

Turn to the letter wheels on page 57.

The sequence of glyphs is repeated four times. Some of the glyphs are familiar from the text but many others are strange. In each case, though, the first glyphs – quite clearly – are OLDAR.

This is a component of chOLDAiin, but with the [r] as a variant of [n].

I regard it as significant that this sequence of glyphs on the letter wheels are the core letters of CHOLDAIIN. We are already led to this sequence of glyphs – O – L – D – A by the probabilities inherent in the text of Currier A. Here they are being presented as if they are the building blocks of the language – that is what the letter wheels suggest.

There are no other meaningful sequences of glyphs in these letter wheels. The first glyphs OLDAR make a valid word, and the form [olda] appears within words over 50 times. 

Moreover, these same glyphs from CHOLDAIIN also appear in a similar presentation as the centrepiece of page 69r:

* * * 

On the whole then, CHOLDAIIN emerges as a very good candidate for a keyword. It only appears in its complete form once, but it is implicit throughout. It permeates the text. 

Arguably, eight of the ten most common words in the entire text are parts of or variations on CHOLDAIIN. ([chol] and [daiin] especially.)

Then on page 57 the core part of the word is presented among the putative building blocks of the text in the schema of primal letters.

The objection that it cannot be a verbum potentiae because it only appears once in the actual text is overcome on closer consideration.

The proposal that it is a paradigmatic word is sustainable from a study of its place in the text.

In fact, there is a certain symmetry to how these two words, keywords, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, appear in the text.

QOKEEDY is prolific – but only appears in Currier B.

CHOLDAIIN only appears once, but in Currier A.

Noting too that the distribution of the prolific [chol] and [daiin] is heavily stacked towards Currier A.

Curiously, the variant [sholdaiin] only occurs once as well.

R.B.