+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) (/thread-4389.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - Bluetoes101 - 21-10-2024
Stolfi was right from what I have seen regarding "m" seeming to need an "a" or "o" precursor and "g" not so much, I believe this is because "m" acts like a fancy "r" and "g" acts like a fancy "d", or I suppose you could imply the same about "r" and "s" as more direct matches (alterations of the same glyph shape using \ or C as a base). [edit: Just read Renes response, yeah "g" could as easily be more like "y", I guess the overall point is just that is does not act like a glyph built up from "\" but one from "C"]
I don't see why they both couldn't represent something similar, but I have found one requires a/o more than the other. I guess you could say the same of English "ing" and "t(/s)ion" so whether they are in-clusters or just suffixes I don't know, I shall bow (plead?
) to the linguists
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - ReneZ - 22-10-2024
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - Koen G - 22-10-2024
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - MarcoP - 22-10-2024
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - Koen G - 22-10-2024
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - MarcoP - 22-10-2024
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - ReneZ - 23-10-2024
RE: Thoughts on [m, g] as [in, ain]? (Stolfi) - ReneZ - 25-10-2024