Why not positional variation?
#1
Whenever I look at the nitty-gritty of Voynichese text, I can't help but feel like some glyphs should be (positional) variants of each other.

* final glyphs have a flourish: Eva- s, n
* In a series of i-minims, the last one looks like EVA-n
* In a series of c-shapes, the last one looks like EVA-s
* EVA-q could be the preferred shape of EVA-y before o

There are also other things, like if you have a series of minims that is not preceded by [o], the first one looks like EVA-a. And I'm sure there's much more like this.
I'm also sure all of this has been remarked many times before. What I don't understand is that some of these features (like [n] being just another minim) have not been adopted as the default approach yet...
[+] 1 user says Thank You to Koen G for this post
Reply
#2
Register or login to view the content
[+] 2 users say Thank You to ReneZ for this post
Reply
#3
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#4
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#5
Register or login to view the content
[+] 3 users say Thank You to RadioFM for this post
Reply
#6
Register or login to view the content
Reply
#7
Register or login to view the content
[+] 2 users say Thank You to Koen G for this post
Reply
#8
Register or login to view the content
[+] 1 user says Thank You to RadioFM for this post
Reply
#9
Register or login to view the content
[+] 3 users say Thank You to Koen G for this post
Reply
#10
Register or login to view the content
[+] 3 users say Thank You to Rafal for this post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)