(23-02-2017, 11:35 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Suggesting that some symbols represent vowels assumes that the symbols represent either letters or sounds.
Both are natural assumptions, but I have very severe doubts about them.
The following symbols: q f p m y are demonstrably not to be identified with letters.
That's five out of (say) 25. How confident can one be that the others are?
And even if they are, what to make of a mixture of letters and non-letters?
I do not know why the characters you state are "not to be identified with letters".
I find absolutely no problem with both
q and
y being straightforward characters which represent phonemes. The characters
f p m can be linked to other characters and have strong positional rules, suggestive of being variants.
(23-02-2017, 06:47 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I find absolutely no problem with both q and y being straightforward characters which represent phonemes. The characters f p m can be linked to other characters and have strong positional rules, suggestive of being variants.
The notion that f and p are just orthographic variants of the double -leg gallows isn't supported by the data. They occur in different character contexts, with different frequencies, and often in different positions within words.
The notion that line-final m is an orthographic variant of r is only weakly supported by the data. Why do we see am dominate om there, when or is so frequent elsewhere?
If you have to shore up orthography with secondary explanations to make it work for something as basic as the letters of the Voynichese alphabet, it's not a very good starting point. :-(
Sam G Wrote:I never said that there was no word network. The question is whether such a network demonstrates that the VMS is not a natural language and if not, then how to account for it. I have proposed both that it could be due simply to phonotactic rigidity, or due to a language in which most or all words are compounds of two or three basic elements. Obviously we don't know enough about how the language works to decide which if either of these possibilities is correct (and it could be a combination of factors). I am, however, fairly satisfied that there's nothing about the word network that suggests we're looking at something other than a natural language text.
My main argument against language is still that that beside the repetition of similar words no word order exists for the VMS. As long as you didn't know if the text of the VMS represents language or not a question like "how the language works" is build on something you didn't know.
Anyway the topic of this thread is "A key to understand the VMS" and not "the VMS is not a natural language". Therefore the question is: What does the network of similar words mean for the VMS? And if you assume that the VMS represents language the network of similar words means at least that you can't "come up with similar examples by using noun declensions or verb conjugations in many languages (including German)" [see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.].
Quote:Quote:What's more likely is that how the words are structured has influenced the design of the script.
No. For instance 'e' is common after 'k' and 't' but not after 'p' and 'f'. Words like 'peShol' and 'feeedy' are unusually rare whereas words like 'keeedy' and 'teeedy' are common for the VMS.
A second example is that a gallow glyph following 'l' is most likely a glyph 'k' or 'f' but not a 't' or 'p'. An example for a word using 'lk' is 'olkchedy' and an example for a word using 'lp' is 'olpchedy'.
With other words the shape of a glyph has some influence to the selection of the next glyph.
I don't see how any of these points contradict the idea that the structure of the language has influenced the design of the script. Actually this looks like evidence in favor of the idea.
See the sequence [oltar olkaiin] in line f78v.P.27. Since the [l] is larger then an [o] or [e] there is less space between [l] and [t].
[
attachment=1165]
In my eyes it makes sense to prefer [k] over [t] if there is less space available. Therefore it makes also sense in my eyes to prefer [t] and [p] if enough space is available as for instance in line initial position.
A similar observation is that of Currier: "'
Words' ending in the [y] sort of symbol, which is very frequent, are followed about four times as often by 'words' beginning with [qo]" [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.].
Quote:Quote:Quote:Now, how many of these properties that you have mentioned can be found in sample texts generated by your auto-copying code? My guess is: none.
It is not necessary to guess here. I have published an App to simulate the auto-copying hypothesis. See for instance my post from 08-02-2017, 07:23 PM in the thread. In fact all of the properties I know can be explained with the auto-copying hypothesis.
Yes, as I've already stated I've tried your app and found the text it produces to be nothing like the actual VMS text.
The purpose of the app is to simulate the auto-copying hypotheses and to generate a text with statistical ratios (entropy, random walk etc.) comparable to the VMS.
Quote:I'll ask once more: where are the word grids produced from texts generated using your auto-copying code? Can you show that they are complete with no gaps, like the ones you have made for the actual VMS text, or not? If you can't make such grids then I don't see how your auto-copying method can account for even what you seem to think is the most important property of the text, let alone the many other properties that I and others have pointed out.
Since the app is generating new words by modifying existing ones no other outcome is possible then a network of similar words:
[
attachment=1167]
[
attachment=1168]
This is the text I have used as source for the graph:
[
attachment=1169]
The first line of the text [
polchedy qokeol okain checThy oteey lShedy okain qokain] is used ad seed and is copied from line f103r.P.18 in the VMS.
(23-02-2017, 02:58 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (23-02-2017, 01:12 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No 'alternative' explanation than 'natural language' for the Voynich MS has ever been demonstrated successfully. but let's not forget at the same time that all attempts to demonstrate 'natural language' as the solution have failed quite miserably.
I don't agree with this. It's true that attempts to connect the VMS to known languages have all failed miserably, but that really just indicates that it's written in some otherwise unknown language.
On the subject of unknown languages... I spent a couple of years looking into extinct languages (I was surprised there were so many and, as an aside, also found out there's a small region in India where more than 100 different languages/dialects are spoken).
I discovered two important things about extinct languages...
One is that quite a number were recorded before they completely disappeared (many of these extinctions are recent), enough to get a sense of how they function and even if the language is no longer spoken as a first language (such as Livonian), sometimes it is still taught in universities as a second language. An "extinct" language is not always a dead language.
The second is that extinct languages almost always have commonalities with surrounding languages (or the languages from which they are derived if it's the language of a nomadic tribe). While this may seem obvious, I get the feeling that some people think extinct languages are exotic and inscrutable, but that is not usually the case. Latin hasn't been spoken for centuries, but we still use it. It is learned, read, written, and the roots of Latin are obvious in languages like French, Italian, Spanish and particularly Romanian.
One doesn't have to know a specific language to get some sense of how it works. There are only so many ways to put together things and actions and languages are predominantly about things and actions, and whatever system is in place for discussing things and actions has to be internally consistent or how can the language be learned and used?
I am skeptical that an unknown language would depart so dramatically from known languages in terms of structure.
Basque shows that a language can be truly different from its surroundings. If isolates went extinct, a whole lot of unique linguistic information was lost.
I agree though that this may not be enough to explain Voynichese. If you consider other factors though, it may explain some things. Like if the one who converted it to script may not have been a native speaker and oversimplified and overstructured things.
(24-02-2017, 03:50 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I agree though that this may not be enough to explain Voynichese. If you consider other factors though, it may explain some things. Like if the one who converted it to script may not have been a native speaker and oversimplified and overstructured things.
I am completely open to this possibility, have considered it, in fact. I think it is possible that someone could transcribe something and not know what matters and what doesn't.
For example, someone born to a western language, where a "g" can be written with a tail of any length without changing the letter's sound or meaning, might not understand that in some languages, the length of the tail or even the presence or absence of a serif, denotes a different glyph. Thus, information would be lost in a transcription.
This might account for some of the apparent repetition, but... it still doesn't explain the positional inflexibility. In most languages, most letters can be used in most positions, not always, some languages have certain letters in certain places more often than others (like a "u" following a "q" or "h" following "t" or a vowel following a consonant in a syllabic language), but the rule set in Voynichese is so strict that even over-simplified glyph shapes can't account for it, and rules for initial/medial/final letters aren't enough to account for it either.
(24-02-2017, 03:50 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Basque shows that a language can be truly different from its surroundings. If isolates went extinct, a whole lot of unique linguistic information was lost.
...
Yes, not just the language, but also the religion (it helps to live in the mountains where it's hard for outsiders to interfere with your customs). Pagan traditions are still strong in that area.
But even Basque has a discernible grammatical structure that can be seen quite quickly by someone who doesn't know any Basque (e.g., nuen/zuen/genuen I/he/we). The VMS doesn't wave these kinds of flags.
(22-02-2017, 11:44 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You found vertical repeats as well. Yes, I can see them but the relation between vertical repeats and the horizontal is imo a far fetch: for example the words have not been aligned vertically. But perhaps I will run stats on those as well in the future.
There is simply no need to align them vertically. Moreover if the words where aligned vertically as you suggest this would make it a bit too obvious that the scribe was only copying words already written.
See for instance the following section on page f80v. There are 5 instances of [olkain], one instance of [solkain] and one instance of [oltain]. The word [olkain] exists 33 times for the VMS. There are only 3 instances of [solkain] and only 2 instances of the word [oltain]. Something like that happens all the time for the VMS. This is what I mean with horizontal repeats. In my eyes this pattern is obvious anyway.
[
attachment=1170]
BTW: The position of [solkain] is in line f80v.P.32. In the same line also the word [qolkain] can be found and in line f80v.P.34 there is an additional instance of [olkain] [see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.]. A possible source for the first [olkain] is the sequence [ol kain] in [pshol kain] in line f80v.P27.
(23-02-2017, 11:42 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the subject of unknown languages... I spent a couple of years looking into extinct languages (I was surprised there were so many and, as an aside, also found out there's a small region in India where more than 100 different languages/dialects are spoken).
A very interesting topic indeed.
One may discover, for example, that there is also a list of 'endangered languages', or even this:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Closer to home, also Italy has a good collection of different languages, and it won't have been less in the middle ages.
As regards Basque, I remember reading that, after the Romans conquered Spain (ahem: Iberia), large numbers of Iberian languages were extinct. These would not have been Indo-European, I guess, and I suppose Basque could be a remnant of this.
Yes, Basque is a rare witness of the languages that were spoken in Europe before Indo-European dominace. It is a marvel that it still exists.
On a similar note, I find it fascinating that many of the names for rivers we use in Dutch today are pre-Germanic in origin, once given by a people whose language is now long gone and forgotten.
Pidgins are another case. They are languagesof opportunity, that only come to exist because of a specific multicultural setting. Most commonly, frequen trade between groups. I rather think that instead of a fully fleshed out language, it is more likely that Voynichese represents one of these pidgins. It would explain for example the frequent repetition of words and the restricted phoneme inventory. Though additional elements are required to explain the properties of the script.