The [q]-less text

The opening text of our manuscript is [q]-less. The glyph [q] does not appear at all on the first page, and does not appear until towards the bottom of the text on the verso page. The opening page and two-thirds has no glyph [q]. 

Of all the anomolies in the text, I regard this as one of the most significant and, potentially, revealing. I have not been able to find much discussion on it. It is well noted, but not much discussed. 

* * *

There is no glyph [q] on the first page. Only one on the second. A handful on the next pages, but by page 11 of the text they are quite profuse, in normal distribution.

This is not enough to say there is a slow introduction of [q]. It seems more the case that there is no [q] and when it is introduced it behaves the same as we find it throughout the text. The number of [q] glyphs increases in subsequent pages because there is more text, not because [q] is being introduced slowly. 

* * *

In the [q]-less text, any word beginning [o-] would be happy to take a [q] before it, but those with a gallows glyph especially.

[otol] can be [qotol].

[okaiir] can be [qokaiir]

But this does not happen on page one, or the first two thirds of the verso. Then, suddenly, on line seven, we have the stand-alone prefix [qo.]

It would seem that the project began with a version of the text without [q], or with [q] only implied. 

It was then decided to make the implicit [q] explicit. 

After that, [q] appears on every page. 

This illustrates the extent to which [q] is redundant. We have noted this before. It was noted by researchers long ago. In almost every case, we can remove [q] from the start of a word and still have a valid word found elsewhere in the text. We could, in fact, remove [q] from the text entirely. Finally, it is not required. The opening text proves it.

But it has been added for clarity, or for some other reason, belatedly. 

* * *

Alternative proposals must find some other reason for the absence of [q] on the opening pages. 

Other possibilities are conceivable. The opening pages of a book are special – introductory. There might be some deliberate reason why [q] was not included in the introduction. 

Perhaps, for example, the opening text explains the glyph [q] before it is introduced. Perhaps the delayed introduction of [q] is deliberate, and important, a part of the design.

But the opening text at least shows us that the language can be written without [q]. 

Perhaps the reader is meant to notice this? 

Perhaps the purpose of the opening text is to inform the reader that in subsequent text they are to disregard the [q] glyph, or read the text as if it is not there, or as if it is optional. 

The opening text might be intended to change how we read the rest of the text. 

* * *

Importantly, this [q]-less opening text bears comparison with the Labels. In the Labels [q] has also gone missing, and a disproportionate number of words begin [o-] without the [q]. 

It suggests gradations:

Labelese – primitive (no [q])

Opening text – more developed ([q] only implied.)

Running text – fully developed ([q] explicit.)

I take the [q]-less opening text as evidence that there was development from Labelese rather than Labelese being a simplification of the running text and its paradigms.

Assuredly, the opening text is not Labelese. What are we to make of the fact that in both of these sub-texts the [q] glyph is missing?  

* * *

In terms of my studies of the text as a dual paradigm system, the absence of [q] signals the diminished influence of the QOKEEDY paradigm. Conversely, it signals the dominance of the CHOLDAIIN paradigm. 

This is what we might expect in this part of the text. 

Where QOKEEDY dominates we have Currier B. Where CHOLDAIIN dominates we have Currier A. 

The opening text is Currier A. 

We could see the opening text as very Currier A. 

It is Currier A with the influence of [q] from the QOKEEDY paradigm unwritten, unacknowledged. It is Currier A with the influence of the QOKEEDY paradigm muted. It is more CHOLDAIIN-based than any other text. 

This is how the manuscript opens, and we might suppose this is done with purpose. 

It conforms to the over-all design of the work, whereby the early (herb) sections display a CHOLDAIIN dominant text (Currier A) and the later astro-cosmic sections of the work display a QOKEEDY dominant text. 

The earliest of the early pages are very CHOLDAIIN. The [q] from QOKEEDY is not being entertained. 

The manuscript opens with a terrestrial voice, i.e. a CHOLDAIIN text. The [q] from the celestial paradigm, QOKEEDY, is nowhere to be seen, not manifest. 

R.B.