The following diagrams might be helpful to clarify the current progress of these investigations, and are presented as useful resources for this direction of study.
Here the two paradigms QOKEEDY and CHOKDAIIN are projected as cycles, modelled on divisions of the ecliptic.
It is essentially the twelve and the eight. The circle can be divided into twelve, or into eight, dividing the quarters by three, or by two.
In particular, these diagrams help us understand the different types of word breaks in the text, the subject of a previous post.
I repost here the notes I made there:
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.
* * *
* * *
In a recent post on the Voynich forum Patrick Feaster offered this tentative set of rules for word breaks:
*Insert space:
Before q
After g, m, n
After r except before y, i
After s before ch (with or without inserted gallows), Sh, d, l
After y except before t, k
After l before r, o, d, ch (with or without inserted gallows), Sh
Between repetitions of o, s, l
How many of these are satisfied by the above cyclic models? Or a better question is: which ones are not?
Leaving aside the exceptions, these rules have breaks after: q, g, m, n, r, s, y and l.
Our models conform to this entirely.
We can see how the exceptions arise too. Why is there a break after l when it is before ch, for example?
Only the spaces between repetitions of glyphs do not appear or cannot be explained by means of these models.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment