What is [q] and what does it do?

To continue and clarify points raised in previous posts, and to pursue some further implications:

The Labels (Labelese) is derived from more primitive versions of the keywords, the verbum potentiae. 

In particular, and most noticeably, the [q] is missing from Labels. The paradigm QOKEEDY has lost the initial [q]. 

There are a small handful of exceptions in what are arguably Labels, but the absence of [q] in Labels generally is very striking. 

I contend that there is a primitive version of the QOKEEDY paradigm – without the [q] - used for the generation of Labels.

But rather than the [q] being dropped from QOKEEDY, it is more likely the [q] has been added to the paradigm and that QOKEEDY is a secondary development. 

That is, we find a primitive or rudimentary version of Voynichese in the Labels. This comes first. It has then been developed, enhanced, modified into the broader text.

* * * 

The original paradigm started with an [o]. Then the [q] was added. We can speak of the primitive paradigm, and its adornment into QOKEEDY. 

The reason for the development or modification of the paradigm would seem to be this:

The original paradigm was only suited to creating single words (labels), and not equipped to produce a running text of words. 

It was modified to accommodate the writing of a running text, and not just isolated words. 

In a running text, for instance, consideration must be given to how words begin and end in relation to other words. This is not a consideration in isolated Labels.

The primary, most obvious, change made to this paradigm is that [q] has been added. 

This is why it is largely redundant. In most cases, we can remove the initial [q] from a word and it still creates a valid word found elsewhere in the text. In this way, it behaves like an addition, an affix. 

We can be certain, though, that it is an addition to the [o]. It is almost never found without the [o] following, and often there is a joining ligature between the two glyphs. [q] and [o] go together. Almost invariably. 

In this sense, the [q] has not been added to the word, as such, in the first instance. It has been added to the [o-] and creates the new prefix [qo-]. This is an important distinction. It is the [o-] that has been subject to the modification. 

* * * 

But what is it? This [q]? 

It is almost certainly not the Latin [q] we find in the EVA transcription. And it may not be a letter at all. It may have an entirely different function. 

For a start, in form it is a numeral: the numeral 4. This fact is entirely lost in EVA but is preserved in other transcriptions. 

Indeed, what has happened is that the foundation or primitive verbum potentiae – which began [o-] - has had the numeral 4 added at the start, [4o-]. 

This does not necessarily mean it functions as a numeral, but the glyph is the numeral 4 nonetheless, a fact that should not be overlooked.

It seems to act like a letter, in an alphabetic sense, and as a consonant, in which case it is a numeral being used as a letter, which is quite possible.

In any case, it has been added, attached, to the [o-] and becomes the initial glyph of the paradigm. 

In doing this, note, it obscures (from us) the inherent (palindromic) symmetries of the primitive paradigm. 

Even more so because other changes come with it. In fact, the addition of the [q] occasions a transformation of the paradigm, impacting other glyphs and component parts.

* * * 

Perhaps most important is that the gallows glyph changes. The original glyph is [t] and the primitive paradigm begins [ot-]. We see it in the Labels where [t] is greatly over-represented and the prefix [ot-] is notably common.

The [t] becomes a [k] when [q] arrives on the scene. OT becomes QOK. 

This means that, among the gallows, [t] is the original form. [k] is a modification, even though it is more common in the running text. 

Again: the modification happens when [q] is added to the initial [o-]. The [t] changes to [k]. 

Note here that the [q] glyph has similarities to the gallows glyphs and is arguably related to them. Neither [q] nor the gallows participate in the curve-line constructions of the text. [q] and the gallows glyphs are based on a vertical line or stroke. 

But more than that, the [q] glyph form is found as part of the gallows designs. This is an important observation. It is not always admitted, and there are other accounts of the gallows glyphs, but we can see what has happened from our study of the underlying paradigms. 

* * * 

Let us ask: why does [t] become [k] when [q] appears at the head of the paradigm? Why does OT become QOK?

We might also ask: Where does [q] come from? 

The answer is that it is already present in the paradigm. It has not been introduced from outside. It is intrinsic, not extraneous. 

It has separated from the glyph [t]. That is where [q] comes from. The gallows glyph [t] sheds the [q] and itself becomes [k]. 

This provides us with many insights, not least concerning the nature of the gallows glyphs. 

Again: the glyph [q] is originally part of the glyph [t]. It is taken from that position and placed at the start of the paradigm, and the [t][ becomes a [k]. 

The glyph [k] is the glyph [t[ shorn of the glyph [q]. 

The glyph [q] has been taken from the glyph [t]. That is where it comes from. 

* * *

So now we have a fuller account of the whole process. 

We begin with the primitive paradigm: OTEEDO. 

The glyph [q[ is already part of the glyph [t].

We detach it from the glyph [t] and place it at the beginning of the word, attached to the glyph [o-]. 

Without the [q], the glyph [t] becomes a [k].

Q comes from T. 

* * * 

The second change happens at the end of the word. The primitive paradigm ends in an [-o]. The full configuration is: 

OKEEDO

The arrival of the initial [q] impacts the final [o] as well. This now takes a tail and becomes what is transcribed in EVA as the glyph [y]. 

Thus: OKEEDO becomes QOKEEDY.

Thus, when [q] is affixed, the gallows glyph transforms, and the second [o] changes into a word-final form, [y]. 

* * *

An explanation for much of this is that the primitive paradigm is inherently cyclic. It is palindromic. The first part of the word mirrors the second part and vice versa. It starts and ends with [o]. 

It naturally moves in a continuous cycle: 

OKEEDOKEEDOKEEDO

To craft this into a language it must be broken up. This, it seems, is the function of [q]. It breaks the flow into words and introduces a system of word breaks. 

[q] and [y] function together in the text. This is because the new cycle, of the adorned and modified paradigm, is:

_QOKEEDY_QOKEEDY_QOKEEDY_

This at least would explain why the addition of the initial [q] impacts the final [o] causing it to become [y]. And it explains why [qo-] almost always follows the word break [-y_].

Why has [q] been taken from [t]? To facilitate the breaking of the text into a series of words. Labelese was not suited to the task and has been modified to suit the creation of running text.

R.B. 

.