Types of Word Breaks (Spaces)

In the model of Voynichese being explored here the high level of the text is based on two templates or paradigmatic words, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN. 

Beneath and before these templates, however, run more primitive cycles of glyphs. 

The top level paradigms, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, emerge or unfold from these underlying cycles. 

As I have explained in a previous post concerning the glyph [q], the underlying cycles are continuous and undifferentiated.

The emergence of QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN from the underlying cycles introduces a system of WORD BREAKS. At this level, words are defined.

Words are segments separated from the continuous cycle by breaks or spaces. 

In my account, the primitive cycles are used to create so-called Labels, [q]-less Labelese. But this lacks an adequate system of word breaks necessary to create a running text. 

QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN answer this need. The cycles settle into distinct words with a system of spaces between them. 

The way this happens, and the way the word template emerges from the underlying cycle, is best seen in the emergence of the [q] glyph. Again, I present an account of that in a previous post. 

In any case, what emerges is a dual paradigm system where the text is generated from the mixing and interacting of QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN. 

These too are cycles. But now the cycle is divided into discrete segments with spaces between them. 

The primitive, underlying text is undifferentiated:

otopotopotopotopo

A system of word breaks is introduced to this (and [t] becomes [k]) and the template word emerges:

_qokeedy_qokeedy_qokeedy_

* * *

There are two templates, though, and there are two different systems of word break. 

The word CHOLDAIIN is, in fact, only found in the text once. But the words [chol] and [daiin] are prolific. 

There is an optional word break in the CHOLDAIIN paradigm, but the natural habit of the paradigm is to bifurcate. 

QOKEEDY is tripartite. It consists of three syllables.

QO – KEE - DY

Of these, only the suffix [dy] stands as a separate word (with about 270 cases in all.) 

CHOLDAIIN divides into two shorter words. 

CHOL DAIIN

But not necessarily. There are plenty of words in the text based upon the model CHOLDAIIN. We can find them easily by searching for the glyph combination [ld]:

poldaiin

oldaiin

saldaiin

oldam

saldam

The word space between the [l] glyph and [d] glyph is optional. 

* * *

We can understand the different types of word breaks by looking at the relevant glyphs in the templates. 

The space between [l] and [d] is optional. 

But the space after [n] is not. 

CHOLDAIIN has a hard break at the end, a soft break in the middle. 

The initial [ch] is also soft because there is nothing to say a space must come before the glyph [ch]. 

This is in contrast to the [q] in QOKEEDY which (more or less) must be initial. It is a hard break. There must be a space before [q]. 

On the other hand the [y] in QOKEEDY is ambiguous. It is both final and initial. 

In the final position it represents a hard break, but the cycle is implied. 

We might say the [n] in CHOLDAIIN says: “Stop! The end!” whereas the [y] in QOKEEDY says, “To be continued…”

Between our templates we have a nice symmetry between hard breaks and soft breaks. 

Of breaks and spaces we can distinguish:

The soft initial break [ch]

The hard initial break [q]

The soft middle break [ld]

The hard final break [n]

The continuing final break [y]

* * * 

Between the spaces are words: segments of the cycle. 

The cycle (the text) has been broken up into different types of segments by different types of breaks. 

The distinction between hard and soft breaks means that sometimes we can remove spaces between words and they make a valid word, and sometimes we cannot. 

In cases where we can, there has been bifurcation on the model of CHOL_DAIIN – a soft break. 

But also, we can find cases where a word could be bifurcated to make two shorter valid words but has not been. The optional break has not been used. 

The model for this is CHOLDAIIN. 

The QOKEEDY paradigm resists bifurcation. It has a tight three-part structure (featuring a gallows glyph)

The QOKEEDY model adheres. The word is unified and tightly knit, consisting of three parts. Triunity.

This is the three-part model detected by Stolfi and others as the basic structure of Voynich words. 

But it is only the model for three-part words. 

The CHOLDAIIN paradigm has the inherent tendency to bifurcate into CHOL + DAIIN and a further tendency to fragment.

Some words are only two-part, or one part. We find free-standing, fragmented prefixes, midfixes and suffixes. 

Consequently, the text is pulled in two directions: towards triune structures, or towards bifurcation and dissolution into fragments: [cho], [ol], [so], [s]…

Hard breaks (and the habits of [y], pull the text towards unified forms while soft breaks (and the emphatic [n] ) pull the text towards dissolution and fragmentation. 

We can immediately identify this structural influence upon any given Voynich word. Unity/multiplicity. Is the word adhering or dissolving?

Again: QOKEEDY binds, gathers, adheres, unifies. CHOL+DAIIN bifurcates, fragments, dissolves.

* * *

As explained in recent posts, I trace the model for all of this to astrological cycles, the cycles of the year. 

The distinction between QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN is the distinction between dividing a quarter of the cycle into three parts or two. 

The text is generated by the principle of: division. 

As for types of word breaks (spaces) there is the distinction between solstices and equinoxes, and also the midpoints (half-quarters) between them.

R.B.