New article in Cryptologia:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Abstract:
Quote:The text of the Voynich manuscript exhibits relationships between neighboring words that have not formally been explored. The last and first glyphs of adjacent words show some dependency, and certain glyph combinations are more or less likely to occur. The patterns of preferences for glyph combinations demonstrate the existence of higher-level glyph groups. The behavior of the glyph combinations may arise due to changes in a glyph caused by its neighbor.
(I'm happy to discuss the philosophy of open access academic publishing with anybody. Please PM me.)
(03-06-2019, 06:24 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.New article in Cryptologia:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Abstract:
Quote:The text of the Voynich manuscript exhibits relationships between neighboring words that have not formally been explored. The last and first glyphs of adjacent words show some dependency, and certain glyph combinations are more or less likely to occur. The patterns of preferences for glyph combinations demonstrate the existence of higher-level glyph groups. The behavior of the glyph combinations may arise due to changes in a glyph caused by its neighbor.
(I'm happy to discuss the philosophy of open access academic publishing with anybody. Please PM me.)
Something you might want to think about in your paper is the fact that the glyph for the Yod symbol (granted this is my translation usage with the Hebrew language, but it does bear some merit) is used multiple times in combination glyphs so therefore it should be counted and doubled, when utilized as a double Yod. This would give a total of 9145, based on your research numbers, and falls right in line with an 11.06% frequency rate in the Hebrew Semitic language.
Some examples:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Of the few others I looked at for similarities with other Hebrew letter frequencies, based on your research numbers, are O glyph in Voynich and the letter Alef in Hebrew. With a combined total of 4714 falls close to the 6.34% frequency.
The Voynich 8 glyph with the Hebrew Resh has a total of 2884 plus those not counted as they were in Yod Resh Yod combinations is 33 and the single hard R glyphs of 141, which equals 3058 and falls close to the 5.61% frequency.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
From the paper:
"We would like to suggest that the existence of word break combinations provides some support for the possibility that the Voynich text is written phonetically in a language."
This may support the theory that it was written by a European in a foreign language who decided to create their own phonetic alphabet rather than however the language is typically written. This has always been my favorite theory as to the why the script was created. If true, coupled with the fact that it's written in plain-text, this could eliminate underlying languages that use the Roman alphabet as there would be no need for such phonetic inventions. This could be potentially game changing if confirmed with further evidence.
Congrats Marco and Emma with the paper and cooperation.
But as I understand, since I do not have free access, I must pay to see this paper (as well) ?
That's a bit strange: I left a fairly extensive comment on AgnosticVoynich pointing out that the article (well, I had read the preprint) missed all mention of Prescott Currier's paper which talks about the specific phenomena the article covers, along with the explanations he proposed (which the article also did not mention). And yet this comment seems not to have appeared there.
Emma, did you moderate it out? Or do you not publish comments?
(20-06-2019, 11:01 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Emma, did you moderate it out? Or do you not publish comments?
In my experience, Wordpress spam filter will sometimes automatically send a comment to the spam folder, especially when it contains many links. When a comment goes missing it's usually there.
(20-06-2019, 10:49 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Congrats Marco and Emma with the paper and cooperation.
But as I understand, since I do not have free access, I must pay to see this paper (as well) ?
Check Emma's blog, she links to the free version.
(20-06-2019, 11:01 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's a bit strange: I left a fairly extensive comment on AgnosticVoynich pointing out that the article (well, I had read the preprint) missed all mention of Prescott Currier's paper which talks about the specific phenomena the article covers, along with the explanations he proposed (which the article also did not mention). And yet this comment seems not to have appeared there.
Emma, did you moderate it out? Or do you not publish comments?
Hello Nick
I hadn't moderated that comment away, I promise. I found the comment in the spam folder and have published it to the relevant post. It's a valid point to raise.
The Currier Paper is mentioned in the final article, but only as a footnote recognising that he was the first to observe the phenomenon and for a couple of other points. We don't build upon his research further for a few reasons. I don't consider his conclusions to be useful: he gives no solid reasons for his conclusions against linguistic arguments and doesn't expand on his suggestions enough to let others explore them.
Even so, the explanations Marco and I explored in the paper aren't strictly dependent on
what the words are, simply how the combinations might be caused. We try to treat words as strings of glyphs between spaces, so that explanations could apply regardless. I expect that the explanation for "digits" or "numbers" would have fallen under point 4.
The arrangement of whole words creates certain word break combinations.
(20-06-2019, 10:49 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Congrats Marco and Emma with the paper and cooperation.
But as I understand, since I do not have free access, I must pay to see this paper (as well) ?
Hello
A preprint is freely available here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Did you know that Prescott Currier got "an A.B. in Romance Languages at George Washington University, and a Diploma in Comparative Philology at the University of London"? He was also a wartime codebreaker, so there was a lifetime of both linguistic and codebreaking skills behind his opinions.
As such, I would expect he fulfils all the criteria you could possibly have for someone able to put forward a valid opinion on this kind of phenomenon. So I find your paper's failure to cite both his work on the subject and his proposed explanations quite incomprehensible, sorry. :-(
I don't think "digits" falls even remotely under point 4, again sorry.
Nice. I could quickly go through.
>> Quote: The text of the Voynich manuscript exhibits relationships between neighboring words that have not formally been explored. ..... The behavior of the glyph combinations may arise due to changes in a glyph caused by its neighbor.
I've published a couple of years back on my site exactly as you did, so it's not really new.
But again, keep up the good work!
(21-06-2019, 02:49 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... I find your paper's failure to cite both his work on the subject and his proposed explanations quite incomprehensible, sorry. :-(
I have to disagree with this. The footnote is fully appropriate in my opinion.
Currier's work in general is amply cited in the paper. His specific opinion on the relation between word ends and word starts is strictly related to one part of the MS, namely the Biological pages. He presents the stats. He then says that he cannot think of any linguistic explanation.