Well, I guess I should be happy that 4 out of my top 5 guesses were the same handwriting but actually I'm kicking myself for not trusting my hunch about the rapid writing, and swapping 7 and zero so 7 is in the top group. I almost moved zero down, then over-rode my gut instinct (grumble, grumble)...
.
BUT... many thanks to Marco. That was challenging and interesting and thank you also for posting the explanatory links and information.
As for Currier's comments about the number of hands, I haven't read what he's written; I only know about it second-hand, mostly from the occasional comment on the forum. I didn't want my viewpoint about the handwriting to be influenced by his opinion and I STILL haven't gotten to it (it's been on my VMS things-to-do list for 10 years).
But I do have a question... does Currier mean hands in the main text (Voynichese) or hands in the VMS overall?
I would say there are at least 10 hands and possibly 11 or 12 (not counting the drawings and painting)...
- 116v - at least one hand and possibly two
- 17r - probably same hand as most of the text on 116v
- ven mus mel - after studying these styles of writing more carefully, I now think this MIGHT be a separate hand from 116v/17r
- color annotations - separate hand from the others
- labels on the zodiac figures is a separate hand, someone in a hurry and disrespectful of the drawings
- quire numbers (older style late 14th-century, early 15th-century numerals)
- folio numbers (transitional to early modern numerals in quite a different hand from the quire numbers)
- Voynich main text - at least two hands and possibly one more though I haven't had time to look into any possible additional hands
- column text on 1r (it seems to be different handwriting from all the others)
- de Tepenecz
The ones I've looked into are 116v/17r, ven mus mel, color annotations, zodiac labels, quire numbers, folio numbers, column text, and VMS main text hand 1. I haven't had a chance to study main text hand 2 (I believe it is a separate hand) or to look closely to see if others exist.
Currier means more than two Voynichese hands, but I don't think he provided folio numbers.
(17-12-2018, 03:09 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The main problem remains, as you also indicate, that we really don't have the basis yet. Currier's observations have not been double checked and remain parrially vague and incomplete. We don't know whether there are abrupt changes or evolutions and how they manifest.
On the agenda for 2019? 
La la la I see NOTHING...
Had no time over w/e due to pre Xmas stuff, still intend to attempt...
But, more importantly, talking about the abrupt changes vs evolutions....the actual graphs presented are absolutely appalling and it is SO difficult to even guess the degree of overlap between Currier A and B. I mean, I don't question the rigour of the statistics but the 3D graphs are just awful...even the little labels overlap so we don't even know exactly WHICH folios are in question....we need a list of those with a confidence interval for each to even begin to judge properly.
Then we need to consider VViews proposal that the intermediate folios may consist of a mixture of A and B in different places. I personally am pretty sure that is true for Quire 10 at least.
Then we need to take seriously Rene's suggestion that we should ditch the Currier classification entirely.
There seem to be some characteristics that offer a good classification and separation between A and B and others that are not so good. This point appears to me to be important.
So, why don't we, as an interim measure, use presence or absence of the apparently best diglyph, EVA ed? Call the results a and b or even Za and Zb in honour of the originator, then use that as a working method to determine the location of the different "languages" or "hands" in the intermediate folios?
Maybe I should have put this elsewhere but I have been thinking a lot about it and need to state it somewhere.
Shoot me down by all means if I am wrong here btw.
Don, we're talking about handwriting, not statistics. If hands are studied from the bottom up it should initially be done without reference to statistics.
(17-12-2018, 04:10 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Don, we're talking about handwriting, not statistics. If hands are studied from the bottom up it should initially be done without reference to statistics.
Er yes. Like I said, this is in the wrong place but was stimulated by your comment.
Should have gone in VViews' Voynich Tasks thread. Sorry.
Although, given the intimate relationship between the so called "languages" and the so called "hands" I reckon what I said is completely relevant to the topic in hand.
(17-12-2018, 03:53 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Currier means more than two Voynichese hands, but I don't think he provided folio numbers.
If not, where does the $H = Currier's hand (1,2,3,4,5,X,Y) information added by ReneZ come from ?