16-08-2017, 09:28 PM
Can anyone out there confirm or deny this?
Stolfi mentions in a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that he found the following gallows distribution:
Stolfi mentions in a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that he found the following gallows distribution:
Quote: I just noticed a curious coincidence:I can't be bothered to dig into this right now - does anybody have the stats to prove or disprove this antique statement?
>
> total *occurrences* of words (tokens) with
>
> 0 gallows .... 17363 (49.4%)
> 1 gallows .... 17443 (49.6%)
> 2 gallows .... 323 (0.9%)
> 3 gallows .... 3
> Many (if not all) of the 2- and 3-gallows words are probably due to
> omission of word spaces by the transcribers. Other data errors may
> have injected a few percent of noise in these figures.
>
> Still, the coincidence is intriguing. It seems safe to assume that a
> "correct" Voynichese word can have at most one gallows; so we have
> almost exact 50-50 split between 0-g and 1-g words.
Even curiouser:
w/o gallows with gallows
+--------------+--------------+
w/o tables | 8772 (25.2%) | 9016 (25.9%) |
+--------------+--------------+
with tables | 8591 (24.7%) | 8423 (24.2%) |
+--------------+--------------+
These are counts of tokens (word instances) in the whole majority-vote
transcription; minus key sequences, labels, unreadable/contentious
tokens, and the 326 tokens with two or more gallows.
The "gallows" are the EVA letters [ktfp], including any platforms
("ct", "cth", "ith") and isolated "e" suffixes ("te", "cthe", etc.).
The "tables" are the letters "ch", "sh", "ee", and any isolated "e"s
that are not attached to a gallows letter.