21-08-2020, 11:03 AM
21-08-2020, 11:12 AM
"totis" than all of them, I actually realized that a long time ago. We've been talking about this for five years.
If Pons uses it together with " with all ",
But Google alone is also classified as just "with".
I can't say I don't know enough Latin. I don't know any Latin. I'm dependent on the translator.
I certainly do not expect any, or not only basic forms in the VM text. What should I do?
If Pons uses it together with " with all ",
But Google alone is also classified as just "with".
I can't say I don't know enough Latin. I don't know any Latin. I'm dependent on the translator.
I certainly do not expect any, or not only basic forms in the VM text. What should I do?
21-08-2020, 11:32 AM
I do not know if it is of importance here, but the repetition of words or phrases is a device in medIeal rhetoric, cp. Arbusov, Colores rhetorici, it is online on Google Books
21-08-2020, 12:26 PM
(21-08-2020, 11:32 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know if it is of importance here, but the repetition of words or phrases is a device in medIeal rhetoric, cp. Arbusov, Colores rhetorici, it is online on Google BooksDo you mean the explanations from page 37 to 45 ?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
21-08-2020, 03:56 PM
(21-08-2020, 12:26 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-08-2020, 11:32 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know if it is of importance here, but the repetition of words or phrases is a device in medIeal rhetoric, cp. Arbusov, Colores rhetorici, it is online on Google BooksDo you mean the explanations from page 37 to 45 ?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thank you, sometimes I start quoting from memory if I do not have the time to look things up
23-08-2020, 12:48 AM
(21-08-2020, 05:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is not logical that someone creating a look-alike of a real text by taking previous words and slightly modifying them, would repeat the same word three or four times, if such a thing would be illogical for real texts.
First René Zandbergen argued "The method is basically arbitrary", now he is arguing that it would be illogical to repeat the same word multiple times. This two arguments not only contradict each other they are also not based on something I have said. I have always argued against the idea that the method is arbitrary or random and I never argued that it would be illogical to repeat the same word multiple times.
Secondly, it is hard to tell what an author in the 15th century found logical or illogical. There is for sure no given ruleset for writing a look-alike text. The only goal is to write something that on first view looks like text. Therefore everybody doing such a task would come up with his own ideas and would develop his own style. As Peter Bakker points out a typical feature we can expect for a pseudo text is, that the text provides inconsistent features: "that certain letters are much more frequent in some parts of the text, and even to such an extent that it is suspicious" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Another feature described by D'Imperio is repetition: "The scribe, faced with the task of thinking up a large number of such dummy sequences, would naturally tend to repeat parts of neighboring strings with various small changes and additions to fill out the line until the next message-bearing word or phrase" (D'Imperio 1978 p. 31)
It should also be taken into account that it is a very monotonous task to write a whole book by copying and modifying previously written words. Therefore we can't expect that the scribe had used the same level of carefulness for every page of the whole book.
(21-08-2020, 05:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The auto-copying theory is just compatible. It is not a good explanation.
That a theory is compatible with the facts is enough. Personal opinions like to me "it doesn't look like a good explanation" shouldn't be used in a constructive discussion.
Whenever someone writes something about our paper from 2019 René Zandbergen jumps in with and says something similar. He finds it important to make clear that in his eyes the paper doesn't have anything important to say:
- "While my opinion of this work is along the same lines as Emma's, I do see that there are very interesting statistics that still lack an explanation." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- "If all of the VMs text is somehow the result of a random process, in the style of Rugg or Timm, then we would see something different." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- "My question remains what the autocopist theory really explains. It focusses on one aspect (similar words appearing near each other) but does not explain some more conspicuous ones, even if in the most recent paper it argues that it does." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- "The Rugg method has this as a very clear 'advantage' over the method of Timm. Every single page in the MS has lots of words that are not a small edit distance away from previous words, so it can't be done for the Timm method." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- "In Timm's system the word structure is hardly addressed" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- "I don't think that the Timm (and Schinner) approach really explains the repetitions of high-frequency words. The method is basically arbitrary, ... This is not really a good explanation." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
All these posts have in common that René Zandbergen doesn't go into the details. He only uses pseudo arguments like the method is "basically arbitrary" (the contrary is the case). He also didn't care if his arguments contradict each other ("small edit distances" vs. "basically arbitrary") or if I had already provided some counter arguments. He simple repeats his false claims and hopes that in the long run it is easier to repeat and to vary his statements than to demonstrate his statements wrong (Isn't it funny that René Zandbergen uses the self-citation method intuitively himself while arguing against the idea that someone could have used the self-citation method to generate large amounts of text?). There is even a whole thread in which René Zandbergen used incorrect statistical methods to "correct" the observation that high frequency words occur together with similar ones on the same pages (see the thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
In his first response to our paper Zandbergen wrote "More importantly, this topic is so much more worthy of discussion than the recent paper about proto-Romance" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). But he never came back to his first statement and he never tried to discuss the subject in a constructive way. Only René Zandbergen knows why he is so heavily biased against our paper whereas he normally tries to present a balanced view. Whatever the reason is, it is worth to notice that he is unable to provide any real argument for his position. Only therefore it becomes necessary to him to refer to the opinions of others and to provide unclear and even incorrect statements as arguments.
23-08-2020, 10:04 AM
Torsten: I understand the structure of your argument perfectly well. At the same time, it seems to me that the idea of edit distance autocopying that originally motivated that argument has had to be modified significantly along the way - the 'rules' of the underlying 'space' have had to be expanded from individual glyphs to groups of letters in order to keep the claim going, which is uncomfortable at best (somewhat tortured at worst).
This reminds me most of Gordon Rugg's claims, which similarly started out simple but had to be progressively modified along the way to overcome basic objections (in his case, line start, line end, Currier A vs B, then intermediate languages, and do on). In the end, his argument ended up being all special cases and no actual substance.
From my perspective, these are both arguments that try to explain away Voynichese rather than actually explain it. Features like Neal keys, line start, line end, themed languages, out of order line writing are problematic for every theory, whether cryptographic, linguistic, or hoax.
If Voynichese was essentially flat and language-like, then both autocopying and table generated text would be acceptable hypotheses, because that is exactly the kind of text you would expect them to produce.
Yet in your zeal to support autocopying, you spend all your efforts playing down all the difficult non-flat stuff, because those behaviours don't fit your model.
In my opinion, though, those are the most interesting parts of Voynichese as a system, because they fit nobody's model.
For example, I suspect that top-line Neal keys are the system's equivalent of a single-word rubric - a way of highlighting a word at the top of a page or paragraph. Clearly this isn't compatible with autocopying: but it's not something that deserves to be dismissed because it is incompatible with autocopying, because autocopying actually says nothing about those things it cannot explain.
This reminds me most of Gordon Rugg's claims, which similarly started out simple but had to be progressively modified along the way to overcome basic objections (in his case, line start, line end, Currier A vs B, then intermediate languages, and do on). In the end, his argument ended up being all special cases and no actual substance.
From my perspective, these are both arguments that try to explain away Voynichese rather than actually explain it. Features like Neal keys, line start, line end, themed languages, out of order line writing are problematic for every theory, whether cryptographic, linguistic, or hoax.
If Voynichese was essentially flat and language-like, then both autocopying and table generated text would be acceptable hypotheses, because that is exactly the kind of text you would expect them to produce.
Yet in your zeal to support autocopying, you spend all your efforts playing down all the difficult non-flat stuff, because those behaviours don't fit your model.
In my opinion, though, those are the most interesting parts of Voynichese as a system, because they fit nobody's model.
For example, I suspect that top-line Neal keys are the system's equivalent of a single-word rubric - a way of highlighting a word at the top of a page or paragraph. Clearly this isn't compatible with autocopying: but it's not something that deserves to be dismissed because it is incompatible with autocopying, because autocopying actually says nothing about those things it cannot explain.
23-08-2020, 01:17 PM
There is already a thread about the paper from 2020. If you have anything to say about it please use this thread.
Your post doesn't refer to any observation or argument I had presented in one of my papers. Instead you write something about Gordon Rugg, about missing topics which I actually address and what you suspect from Neal keys. This suggests that you didn't have anything to say about my argument or about the structure of it.
There was no significant modification of my theory. It is not even possible to calculate edit distances for individual glyphs since the edit distance is designed to measure the difference between words. Therefore your idea that the argument about some edit distances changed from letters to glyph groups doesn't make any sense.
Every theory stands on its own. What you have to say about Gordon Rugg's theory can therefore only say something about Gordon Rugg's theory.
There is simply no need to downplay Neal keys, line start, line end, themed languages. They all are examples of repetition that do in fact support our claim. For instance we explain the themed languages as gradual evolution of a single system from Currier A to Currier B in our paper from 2020 (see Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 7). I also had published a whole chapter about "The line as functional entity" (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 18ff) and a whole chapter about "The paragraph as a functional entity" (see Timm 2015, p. 26ff) and I also address an example of out of order line writing (see Timm 2015, p. 34).
Sorry, but there is simply no need that mine or any theory must be compatible with what someone suspects.
(23-08-2020, 10:04 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten: I understand the structure of your argument perfectly well.
Your post doesn't refer to any observation or argument I had presented in one of my papers. Instead you write something about Gordon Rugg, about missing topics which I actually address and what you suspect from Neal keys. This suggests that you didn't have anything to say about my argument or about the structure of it.
(23-08-2020, 10:04 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At the same time, it seems to me that the idea of edit distance autocopying that originally motivated that argument has had to be modified significantly along the way - the 'rules' of the underlying 'space' have had to be expanded from individual glyphs to groups of letters in order to keep the claim going, which is uncomfortable at best (somewhat tortured at worst).
There was no significant modification of my theory. It is not even possible to calculate edit distances for individual glyphs since the edit distance is designed to measure the difference between words. Therefore your idea that the argument about some edit distances changed from letters to glyph groups doesn't make any sense.
(23-08-2020, 10:04 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This reminds me most of Gordon Rugg's claims, which similarly started out simple but had to be progressively modified along the way to overcome basic objections (in his case, line start, line end, Currier A vs B, then intermediate languages, and do on). In the end, his argument ended up being all special cases and no actual substance. From my perspective, these are both arguments that try to explain away Voynichese rather than actually explain it.
Every theory stands on its own. What you have to say about Gordon Rugg's theory can therefore only say something about Gordon Rugg's theory.
(23-08-2020, 10:04 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Features like Neal keys, line start, line end, themed languages, out of order line writing are problematic for every theory, whether cryptographic, linguistic, or hoax.
If Voynichese was essentially flat and language-like, then both autocopying and table generated text would be acceptable hypotheses, because that is exactly the kind of text you would expect them to produce.
Yet in your zeal to support autocopying, you spend all your efforts playing down all the difficult non-flat stuff, because those behaviours don't fit your model. In my opinion, though, those are the most interesting parts of Voynichese as a system, because they fit nobody's model.
There is simply no need to downplay Neal keys, line start, line end, themed languages. They all are examples of repetition that do in fact support our claim. For instance we explain the themed languages as gradual evolution of a single system from Currier A to Currier B in our paper from 2020 (see Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 7). I also had published a whole chapter about "The line as functional entity" (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 18ff) and a whole chapter about "The paragraph as a functional entity" (see Timm 2015, p. 26ff) and I also address an example of out of order line writing (see Timm 2015, p. 34).
(23-08-2020, 10:04 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, I suspect that top-line Neal keys are the system's equivalent of a single-word rubric - a way of highlighting a word at the top of a page or paragraph. Clearly this isn't compatible with autocopying: but it's not something that deserves to be dismissed because it is incompatible with autocopying, because autocopying actually says nothing about those things it cannot explain.
Sorry, but there is simply no need that mine or any theory must be compatible with what someone suspects.
23-08-2020, 04:40 PM
23-08-2020, 05:12 PM
(23-08-2020, 04:40 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-08-2020, 11:32 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know if it is of importance here, but the repetition of words or phrases is a device in medIeal rhetoric, cp. Arbusov, Colores rhetorici, it is online on Google Books
Epizeuxis.
Geminatio is two times, E. is three times ormore