The analysis pursued in these pages is based on a dual paradigm model. The proposal is that the Voynich text is generated from two templates, two keywords, verbum potentiae: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
It is easy to identify the imprint of these paradigms and to map their penetration of the text.
In practice, we can attribute every glyph of every word to one of the two templates.
Further, though, and importantly, we can attribute WORD BREAKS to the paradigms as well.
The paradigms shape not just the words but the word breaks and the form of the whole text.
We can distinguish three types of word breaks:
*The break after [y] in QOKEEDY
*The break after [l] in CHOL
*The break after [n] in DAIIN
(Because the CHOLDAIIN paradigm bifurcates into CHOL and DAIIN.)
I propose that these are three different types of word breaks:
*The break after [n] in DAIIN is hard and final.
*The break after [y] in QOKEEDY is hard but implies continuation. It is cyclic. The final [y] implies the initial [q].
*The break after [l] in CHOL is soft and optional.
We see this in the behavior of the glyphs [n], [y] and [l].
[n] is always final.
[y] is final, and initial (cyclic)
[l] may or may not be final.
We will mark these three types of breaks with dashes:
The hard break after [n] in DAIIN is three dashes ---
The medium break after [y] in QOKEEDY is two dashes --
The soft break after [l] in CHOL is one dash, -
* * *
Example:
Consider the following phrase from f58r:
saiin.cholkeey.dal.
There are three different types of word break here. There is the hard break after [saiin], the medium break after [cholkeey] and the soft break after [dal]. Thus:
saiin --- cholkeey -- dal -
Another example, a line of text from f42r:
sol.kaiin.char.cheky.otshaiin.daiiry
The word breaks are:
sol - kaiin --- char - cheky --otshaiin --- daiiry --
We can apply this to any given sample of the text.
This is usually a straightforward matter but sometimes there are ambiguous cases; these are resolved from context.
The determining factor is the form of the word and not necessarily the final glyph. Thus [shok] is a form of [shol] which is a form of [chol] and so the break after it is soft.
Even the word [qok] is, for these purposes, a form of [chol]. There is no natural break after [qok] in QOKEEDY. The break after the prefix is a feature of the CHOL - DAIIN paradigm. Thus the break after [qok] is soft because in form it is based upon [chol]. The model for free-standing prefixes is [chol].
Here are the first four lines of the manuscript with the types of word breaks indicated:
fachys -- ykal - ar --- ataiin --- shol - shory -- cthres -- y -- kor - sholdy --
sory -- ckhar --- or - y -- kair --- chtaiin --- shar --- are -- cthar --- cthar --- dan ---
syaiir ---sheky -- or -ykaiin --- shod - cthoary -- cthes -- daraiin --- sa ---
ooiin ---oteey -- oteos -- roloty --cth*ar --- daiin --- otaiin --- or - okan ---
* * *
The essential thing to observe is that the word breaks are implicit in the words. Indeed, they are part of the words.
We tend to think of word breaks as additional to the text. There is a string of glyphs, and then we are at liberty to divide it up with word breaks. We read the words without noticing their breaks.
But the breaks are part of the words and built into the paradigms from the outset. Word breaks, like everything else, are governed by rules.
Even more, our study of the glyph [q] suggests that breaking the text into words with spaces was the very purpose of creating the _QOKEEDY_ template.
The primitive text, we said, such as found in 'Labels', does not have a system of word breaks. The system of word breaks arises with the emergence of the QOKEEDY paradigm. Then the CHOLDAIIN paradigm arises with another built-in system of breaks.
This is what the paradigms do: they divide the text up into units that we call 'vords'.
To quickly go over the text's cosmogony again: the bedrock text is a series of omicrons, oooooooooo, but it is undifferentiated and undivided.
It is then punctuated with the gallows glyphs (originally [t]) : ototototo, but this too is undifferentiated and undivided.
The next step, the development of the QOKEEDY paradigm, breaks this continuous stream up into discrete units separated by spaces: _qokeedy_qokeedy_qokeedy_
Then the CHOLDAIIN paradigm breaks it up in a different way: _chol_daiin_chol_daiin_
The difference is that QOKEEDY cycles, but CHOLDAIIN bifurcates.
In any case, the division of the text into words (vords) is not unimportant or incidental, or left to the fancy of scribes: it is essential to the text, even one of the deepest motivations of the text.
The very impetus of the high level text is to break up the bedrock text into vords.
It is a process of division.
What are vords? Ways of dividing up the bedrock text.
QOKEEDY divides the bedrock text one way, and CHOLDAIIN divides it another way: in the text of our manuscript we find the two systems of division mixed together.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment