[
attachment=4229]
What Stolfi does not explain is the dismantling in the midfield into its individual parts. Basic structure ( possible alphabet )
This in turn results in unlimited possibilities in combination.
But you have to be careful not to fall into italics, otherwise it becomes too obvious.
It is not primarily about right or wrong, but about the disclosure of a system. The rest comes by itself.
(25-04-2020, 06:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Timm's system the word structure is hardly addressed, and Rugg's system is actually based on Stolfi's work.
The word structure is addressed in Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 10f: "The rules to modify a source word normally don’t affect the order of the glyphs. This is one reason for the observation that the words in the VMS share the same rigid word structure. Additionally, for a text created by self-citation, it appears as a logical assumption that the scribe also used esthetically motivated design rules for glyph selection, in order to harmonize the overall appearance of the text. These rules specify when two glyphs may
follow one another. ..." [You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.].
Keep in mind that the text isn't static! There are always local variations which result in a gradual evolution from Currier language A to B (see Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 9). Therefore it is not possible to explain the text by using some static rules and by trying to explain local variations as exceptions. Instead it is necessary to describe the text as dynamic system that evolves over time!
(23-04-2020, 05:27 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@JKP, I'm intrigued by your efforts to construct an alphabetical order for Voynichese characters, by which all vords could be indexed. Have you fully fleshed out an alphabetical order and a set of rules for how it was determined? Also, are you aware of any such effort by any other VMS researchers? This is a project I considered putting together last summer. I think a "Voynichese dictionary" of all types that occur in the VMS, with vords prominently marked for their number of tokens, and the folios / sections / Currier languages of most frequent occurrence, could be a very helpful tool for finding patterns in the VMS text.
A voynich concordance is already available You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(25-04-2020, 03:24 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A voynich concordance is already available You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Excellent resource, Torsten. This is along the lines of what I was talking about.
Coming back to the opening post:
(19-04-2020, 12:07 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[q] + [o/a/y] + [k/t/p/f] + [ch/che/chee/Sh/ee/etc.] + [o/a/y] + [r/l] + [d/s] + [o/a/y] + [n/in/iin/iiin/m/im/etc.]
Both the close correspondence, and the various differences with the core-mantle-crust paradigm were already pointed out.
My thoughts are about three groups:
[q] + [o/a/y]
These really occur in very preferential combinations, where the second group is unlikely to be 'empty' if the first group is not. If the right group does not have [o], the left group is likely to be 'empty'
[o/a/y] + [n/in/iin/iiin/m/im/etc.]
A similar thought here. If the left group is empty, the right group is also very likely to be empty.
If the left group has [y], the right group is likely to be empty.
[r/l] + [d/s]
This is really interesting. The ordering is preferential, but not a hard rule.
[r] on the left 'looks like' [s] on the right, while [l] on the left 'looks like [d] on the right.
[r] + [s] is much less likely to occur than the other three.
Why all this would be is intriguing.
I'll just write my contribution here, because it also has something to do with "q".
I brought it up a long time ago, but I never really explained it.
It comes from..." We learn Voynich"
4 against 4
or why EVA "q" may contain 2 possibilities.
If you take a closer look at the VM symbols, you will notice that sometimes they do not look exactly the same. I therefore refer to the symbols as 4 and q to make it a little easier.
[
attachment=6649]
The question is, is it just a variation in spelling, or is there an intention behind it?
If I assume that there are several authors involved, is it still possible that they all have the same spelling tolerance?
With rare exceptions, both are only found at the beginning of words. That is why we speak of prefixes in this connection.
But how does it look when I put prefixes opposite each other? Both can also stand alone.
[
attachment=6650]
[
attachment=6651]
Examples in the appendix.
Wouldn't it rather explain the frequency of the prefix in the text?
What does it look like when I look at this picture?
I would see it as a correction. This suggests that there are more, or why is he doing this?
[
attachment=6652]
Appendix
[
attachment=6653]
[
attachment=6654]
[
attachment=6655]
There does appear to be quite some variety in (or even a continuum between) VM glyphs.
It should be possible to find out if the occurrence of 4 / q can be attributed to different 'scribes' or if both forms can be found within each 'scribe's' contribution.
(10-07-2022, 06:01 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It should be possible to find out if the occurrence of 4 / q can be attributed to different 'scribes' or if both forms can be found within each 'scribe's' contribution.
Both forms exist on the same line on page 75r, for example