The Voynich Ninja

For the simple reason that this is my thread - ooh Betty! You are being analytical 

(22-07-2018, 05:07 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your observation is valid but your hypothesis isn't. The problem you face is that the word statistics for the line starts are often different from the main text (especially in Currier B). It's unsafe to use an observation for a single glyph when there many other differences. Any theory should attempt to account not only for the use of gallow glyphs in this position, but also d, y, s.

It seems that you are talking about something I didn't say in this thread. In this thread I only said something about frequencies for the word types in the VMS. Similar word types occur with similar frequencies. [font=Trebuchet MS]There is no exception for this observation. Even some chained words for which no similar words exists behave as expected. They occur only once. Therefore the conclusion that similar words depend in some way on each other is inescapable. [/font]

The usage of t and k is not more then an interesting detail. It is interesting since at first sight we would not expect that [font=Eva]qotar and qotal are less frequent then [font=Eva]qokar[font=Trebuchet MS] and [/font]qokal[/font][/font]. I have tried to explain why this word types [font=Trebuchet MS]behave this way. But this didn't mean that I have to explain every detail. The frequencies for the word types differ for Currier A and B. Therefore, if you want to go into all the details you have to distinguish between Currier A and B, between different line positions and between labels and normal text anyway. The important point is that all the details didn't change  the overall picture for the VMS. It is possible to describe a mountain as a mountain even if he has  some bumps and slacks, since without bumps and slacks it would be a cone.[/font]

(22-07-2018, 06:26 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-07-2018, 05:07 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your observation is valid but your hypothesis isn't. The problem you face is that the word statistics for the line starts are often different from the main text (especially in Currier B). It's unsafe to use an observation for a single glyph when there many other differences. Any theory should attempt to account not only for the use of gallow glyphs in this position, but also d, y, s.

It seems that you are talking about something I didn't say in this thread. In this thread I only said something about frequencies for the word types in the VMS. Similar word types occur with similar frequencies. [font=Trebuchet MS]There is no exception for this observation. Even some chained words for which no similar words exists behave as expected. They occur only once. Therefore the conclusion that similar words depend in some way on each other is inescapable. [/font]

The usage of t and k is not more then an interesting detail. It is interesting since at first sight we would not expect that [font=Eva]qotar and qotal are less frequent then [font=Eva]qokar[font=Trebuchet MS] and [/font]qokal[/font][/font]. I have tried to explain why this word types [font=Trebuchet MS]behave this way. But this didn't mean that I have to explain every detail. The frequencies for the word types differ for Currier A and B. Therefore, if you want to go into all the details you have to distinguish between Currier A and B, between different line positions and between labels and normal text anyway. The important point is that all the details didn't change  the overall picture for the VMS. It is possible to see a mountain even if the mountain has  some bumps and slacks.[/font]

Torsten, you're making two different points and it's important to state them explicitly:
1) that the difference between the occurrence of k and t is due to the space available and the space each glyph takes; and
2) that there is a relationship between the frequencies of similar words.

On 1), this is the point I was addressing in my last comment. Your observation on their occurrences at the start of lines is not sufficient to support your hypothesis that this is due to their shapes. It is a supposition which is contradicted by a simple observation: both k and t increase in frequency when o is added and t only declines once q is also added. Your hypothesis would need t to become less frequent once no longer at the start of a word.

On 2), I agree that there are relationships in the frequencies of similar words. But different sets of related words have different relative levels. There is not one single pattern, but multiple patterns. These patterns are seemingly determined by the glyphs present in a word. They are not "bumps and slacks" but important aspects of what's actually happening. They are important because they can disprove several theories of how the text was created.

(22-07-2018, 06:42 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten, you're making two different points and it's important to state them explicitly:
1) that the difference between the occurrence of k and t is due to the space available and the space each glyph takes; and
2) that there is a relationship between the frequencies of similar words.

On 1), this is the point I was addressing in my last comment. Your observation on their occurrences at the start of lines is not sufficient to support your hypothesis that this is due to their shapes. It is a supposition which is contradicted by a simple observation: both k and t increase in frequency when o is added and t only declines once q is also added. Your hypothesis would need t to become less frequent once no longer at the start of a word.

On 2), I agree that there are relationships in the frequencies of similar words. But different sets of related words have different relative levels. There is not one single pattern, but multiple patterns. These patterns are seemingly determined by the glyphs present in a word. They are not "bumps and slacks" but important aspects of what's actually happening. They are important because they can disprove several theories of how the text was created.

1) Yes, both k and t increase in frequency when o is added. But at the same time d decreases in frequency when o is added. This happens since o + d is normally transformed into o + gallow. Therefore you have to sum up all the -dar, -kar and -tar word types to see the real picture:

*ar (413)  o*ar (294)  qo*ar (226)
*al (296)  o*al (294)  qo*al (257)
*an ( 24)  o*an ( 12)  qo*an ( 11)
[font=Courier New][* stands for d, k, t][/font]

You can also sum up all the -dor, -kor and -tor words:

*or (122)  o*or ( 88)  qo*or ( 67)
*ol (202)  o*ol (190)  qo*ol (152)
*on (  0)  o*on (  0)  qo*on (  0)
[font=Courier New][font=Courier New][* stands for [/font][font=Courier New]d, k, t][/font][/font]

2) Indeed, different sets of related words have different relative levels. The text is changing over time from Currier A to Currier B. Therefore is is obvious that it is not a single pattern, but multiple patterns. This is also expected since a text from the medieval ages must be the result of an human mind. A plain cone without any bumps and slacks would prove that the text is the result of an algorithm and was probably generated with a device like a computer.

Your objection is that the statistics must be plain and simple. But there is no need to follow a given set of rules without any exception. Not only that it would be very hard to do so manually, the text generation method would also be far to obvious this way. Being creative is a characteristic of the human mind.

I'm sorry that I have to restate the problem but your answer is not good enough: you've claimed that k and t are variants based on the space available yet the patterns I've pointed out show this claim doesn't make sense.

Let me make this very, very clear:
a) you claim that k is used in place of t where there is less space*; yet
b) when k and t are prefixed with o, both become more frequent; thus
c) less space does not lead to more k and less t; yet
d) t becomes less frequent than k when prefixed with qo; thus
e) there's actually a different pattern which causes the relative frequencies of k and t.

Please don't both answering if you won't address which of the points a)-e) are wrong.

*This is what you wrote earlier:

Quote:The reason for this pattern is the shape of the glyphs. k and [font=Eva]f need less space then [/font]t and p. The additional curve at the top is the reason that t is preferred over k at the beginning of a line or word. There is simply enough space since there is no other character in front to interfere with.

(22-07-2018, 09:49 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sorry that I have to restate the problem but your answer is not good enough: you've claimed that k and t are variants based on the space available yet the patterns I've pointed out show this claim doesn't make sense.

Let me make this very, very clear:
a) you claim that k is used in place of t where there is less space*; yet
b) when k and t are prefixed with o, both become more frequent; thus
c) less space does not lead to more k and less t; yet
d) t becomes less frequent than k when prefixed with qo; thus
e) there's actually a different pattern which causes the relative frequencies of k and t.

Please don't both answering if you won't address which of the points a)-e) are wrong.

*This is what you wrote earlier:

Quote:The reason for this pattern is the shape of the glyphs. k and [font=Eva]f need less space then [/font]t and p. The additional curve at the top is the reason that t is preferred over k at the beginning of a line or word. There is simply enough space since there is no other character in front to interfere with.

One observation was that when k and t are prefixed with o, both become more frequent. My explanation for this observation was that this happens since o + d is normally transformed into o + gallow. 

The other observation was that t becomes less frequent than k when prefixed with qo-. My answer for this observation was that t has the tendency to be more common in line initial position then expected.

Now you argue that this two explanations would contradict each other. 

If we look to the statistics for words in line initial position we see that in this position words starting with  o- are more common than words starting with qo-:

tar ( 15) otar (  6)  qotar (  3)
tal (  2) otal ( 11)  qotal (  2)

One factor is therefore  that t is preferred in line initial position and qo- is not. But this is indeed not the only reason. Another reason is that qo- is far more common in Currier B and that most of the qo- words in Currier B are starting with qok-. Words starting with qok- are therefore in general more common then words starting with qot-:

okaiin (212) qokaiin (262)   otaiin (154) qotaiin (79)
okain  (144) qokain  (279)   otain  ( 96) qotain  (64)
okar   (129) qokar   (152)   otar   (141) qotar   (63)
okal   (138) qokal   (191)   otal   (143) qotal   (59)
okor   ( 34) qokor   ( 36)   otor   ( 46) qotor   (29)
okol   ( 82) qokol   (104)   otol   ( 86) qotol   (47)

Hello,

This is the most analytical thread ever about not being analytical!

I see the topic as a false dichotomy. Both conceptual and analytical thinking are needed. Analysis should suggest an explanation, a hypothesis or theory or at least a plausible paradigm that needs to be investigated further, by analyzing the consequences. This is how the scientific method works, usually, as a loop including both induction and deduction.

BTW has anyone done a study of the plausibility of "fused" or "hybrid" glyphs for g, m, u...?

(23-07-2018, 10:21 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

BTW has anyone done a study of the plausibility of "fused" or "hybrid" glyphs for g, m, u...?

I think it's natural to do so for two reasons... 1) there's a prevalent curve and line theme in VMS glyph shapes and 2) in Latin scribal conventions each of the glyphs you posted is an abbreviation and the loop/descender on the first two and the tail on the second one are read in Latin as "add-ons" (the glyph has two parts). Since they are two-part glyphs in Latin, then perhaps they are two-part glyphs in the VMS. They may not mean the same thing, but they are perhaps constructed the same way.

I've been trying to (statistically) sort out which ones are distinct and might need to be interpreted differently (e.g., EVA-m has three basic variations) and which ones are simply pen variations.

(23-07-2018, 10:44 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think it's natural to do so for two reasons... 1) because of the curve and line theme that seems prevalent in VMS glyphs and 2) because in Latin scribal conventions each of those is an abbreviation and the loop/descender on the first two and the tail on the second one are read in Latin as "add-ons" (the glyph has two parts). If it they are two-piece glyphs in Latin, there's also a possibility they are two-piece glyphs in VMS. They may not mean the same thing, but they may be constructed the same way.

I am thinking about a generalized glyph merging system where a common part would be written only once when there is a unique way to interpret the result, not add-on components (of "hybrids") or variants. The transcription by Takeshi Takahashi already takes into account a+n = u to remove the u glyph altogether, there are many other possible "merged" or "fused" glyphs. Some are partially acknowledged by TT... this was done on a personal feeling basis I suppose, the correlation with the context should be studied.

I think that the only places where there is less space is when the text hits a drawing.