Leftwards and Rightwards

 

The spatial gesture of some glyphs is rightwards, with the flow of the text. 

Other glyphs, though, have gestures that go against the flow of the text. 

In particular, there are glyphs that feature tails or plumes that curve backwards, leftwards.

Then there are some glyphs which seem neutral in this regard. 

In some cases of the leftward gesturing glyphs, a plume has been attached to an otherwise rightwards gesturing glyph, and thus the direction has been reversed. 

The glyph [s] is the obvious example.

The base of the glyph is an [e] glyph, which gestures rightwards, with the flow of the text. But a plume has been added which arches backwards in the other direction. 

Note that in all cases where a plume or tail has been added its gesture is leftwards, against the text, and in all cases, too, the plume or tail extends either above or below the levels of the main text – above the head line or below the base line of the text. 

We can make a rule: any tail or plume in the script will be leftwards gesturing and will deviate, above or below, from the main space of the running text.

In fact, though, the only glyph form that really gestures rightwards, with the text, is the glyph [e], and by extension its consolidation into [ch] and the other benched forms. 

All other glyphs are neutral or, in most cases, gesture against the flow of the text. 

Among the gallows glyphs, [t] and [p] are neutral due to their symmetry. [k] and [f] have loops to the right of their vertical strokes and so are assymetrical, going with the rightwards flow of the text.

[d] is perhaps debateable, but like [o] it seems inherently neutral. It could be argued that [a] has a neutral symmetry of left and right too.

I count [q] as having a leftwards gesture in its upper triangular form, again above the head line of the text which is given emphasis by the horizontal stroke of the glyph.

* * * 

This left/right behavior built into the glyph set is underscored by the rare glyph [x].

We see it with leftward gesturing feet, and with rightward gesturing feet. It can walk to the left or the right. 

Evidently, leftwardness and rightwardness are matters of concern to the designer of the script.

* * * 

Bringing my studies on paradigms to these observations, I note the following:

The primitive paradigm, OTOPO, is entirely neutral. None of these glyphs have a distinct left or right gesture. The primitive paradigm is entirely symmetrical and displays no movement. It is the unmoving paradigm. 

It is when the primitive paradigm unfolds into the verbum potentiae, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, that movement begins. These paradigms are animate.

In particular, note, the division that creates [ee] in QOKEEDY and then [ch] in CHOLDAIIN initiates the forward textwards flow.

At the same time, the neutral [t] becomes the rightwards gesturing [k] in QOKEEDY. 

Remember, though, that when the primitive paradigm unfolds into QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN the cycling flow of the underlying stream is divided into words and word breaks. 

These paradigms come equipped with devices to divide the text into words and word breaks. 

This is accomplished by the backward gesturing glyphs. They stop the flow. Word break. 

In QOKEEDY this is accomplished by the final [y] with a backward gesturing tail that drops below the base of the text.

In CHOLDAIIN it is accomplished by the [n] with a backward gesturing plume that reaches above the head line of the text. 

The gesture of [y] is backwards and down.

The gesture of [n] is backwards and up. 

This is another point of coincidentia oppositorum between the two paradigms from which the running text is unfolded and extracted.

The word [daiin], we note – the most common word in the text – is a word whose whole gesture is contrary to the flow of the text.

Of the two paradigms, QOKEEDY contains the most gestures rightwards with the text.

In contrast, CHOLDAIIN shows gestures that are entirely about halting the rightward flow. 

First, the [ee] of QOKEEDY is restrained by a conjoining ligature, and after that CHOL and DAIIN come to abrupt halts with emphatic rightward gestures.

I propose that these are all matters of careful design, are intended, and significant. 

* * *

What might it signify? 

I propose, as readers of these posts will know, that the language system in the Voynich is based upon the YEAR (as a symbolic system.) 

How then does this feature of the text – leftwardness and rightwardness – follow from that analogy?

For a start, the convention of rightwards moving text (such as in the Voynich, as in English, etc.) is clockwise, with the sun. 

Gestures against the flow of the text are therefore counter-clockwise, against the sun. 

But, in fact, there are two movements of the sun, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise, and they define the YEAR in relation to the DAY. 

As it appears, the sun revolves around the Earth – with the firmament – from east to west every day. 

But, at the same time – coincidentia oppositorum – the sun moves contrary to the firmament among the constellations from west to east, completing the cycle in a year.

Thus the sun moves east to west daily, but west to east yearly. 

Any model of the year must account for this – a movement going one way, and a movement going the other. 

If, as I suggest, what we have in the Voynich ms. is the year made text, then we would expect a built-in system to accommodate and express this essential, if paradoxical, feature of the solar YEAR. 

R.B.