06-11-2020, 08:04 PM
The conclusion of the paper is that the Voynich script has poor phonemic distinction. The language has more phonemes than the script can accurately describe.
An Example Using English
We can think of it in the following way: English has the phonemes /p b/ /t d/ /k g/, which are three pairs distinguished presence/absence of voicing. A hypothetical new English script might only have three glyphs, one for each pair, but not show whether the voiced or unvoiced sound is meant. So 'p' might mean /p/ and /b/, 't' might mean /t/ and /d/, and 'k' could mean /k/ and /g/. Thus in English, "dog", "tog", "tock", and "dock" would be written "tok". A read would need to work out which word is mean by the context, such as "the tok chases the kat" or "the ship sails from the tok".
We kan assume that the reater of the Voynich text unterstants the unterlying language well enough and prings their knowledge of the language to the text in orter to work out the kontext, the possiple options for each wort, and kan choose which one is korrekt. (Any second language readers, please forgive me.)
Let's further imagine that in this new English script sibilants are distinguished by voice. So there are separate glyphs for /s/ and /z/, which are 's' and 'z', respectively. In English the plural of final 's' has a different sound depending on the preceding phoneme. So a word ending with a voiced sound will have a plural with /z/ and a word ending with an unvoiced sound will have an /s/ plural (it's more complex than this, but we'll keep it simple for this example).
The plural of "tok" written in this new English script could be "toks" or "tokz". While "tok" is ambiguous, "toks" and "tokz" are less so, because the final 's' and 'z' give a clue to the voicing of the 'k'. Effectively there are two 'k's: one unvoiced taking the 's' plural and the other voiced taking the 'z' plural. Thus "toks" must be "docks" or "tocks" in normal English, while "tokz" must be "dogs" or "togs".
An Example from the Voynich Manuscript
In the Voynich text we have many words beginning [ch]. They occur at the start of lines less often than they should. We also see words beginning [ych] and [dch], which occur at the start of lines more often than they should. We could suggest that words beginning [ch] sometimes add [y] or [d] when they occur at the start of lines. But how is it decided whether they take [d], [y], or nothing?
We could propose that there are three different values for [ch] (we'll call them [ch1] and [ch2] and [ch3]), and that they act differently at the start of lines. [ch1] occurs at the start of lines without an additional glyph before it, [ch2] takes [y] before it at the start of lines, and [ch3] takes [d]. The reason why they act differently is explained above in the English example: the script doesn't make a distinction between certain phonemes, but the writer knows the distinction and knows that they interact differently at the start of lines. So even though the distinction isn't in the script it is still in the text.
Please remember: the above is just an example of the idea, not a statement of what I think is true.
In any contexts where glyphs interact (such as line start, line end, word break combinations, and maybe others) we might be able to pick up the linguistic knowledge of the writer leaving hints about the phonemic distinction. The knowledge extracted from these hints, if it fits together coherently, could allow us to restore the distinction lost in the text.
I have ideas of how this could be done, but already this comment is quite long. So I'll leave it here for others to respond. I'm wary that we might want a different thread to discuss as we are leaving the original topic somewhat.
Late addition: I wonder if we should call this "orthographic cheshirization"?
An Example Using English
We can think of it in the following way: English has the phonemes /p b/ /t d/ /k g/, which are three pairs distinguished presence/absence of voicing. A hypothetical new English script might only have three glyphs, one for each pair, but not show whether the voiced or unvoiced sound is meant. So 'p' might mean /p/ and /b/, 't' might mean /t/ and /d/, and 'k' could mean /k/ and /g/. Thus in English, "dog", "tog", "tock", and "dock" would be written "tok". A read would need to work out which word is mean by the context, such as "the tok chases the kat" or "the ship sails from the tok".
We kan assume that the reater of the Voynich text unterstants the unterlying language well enough and prings their knowledge of the language to the text in orter to work out the kontext, the possiple options for each wort, and kan choose which one is korrekt. (Any second language readers, please forgive me.)
Let's further imagine that in this new English script sibilants are distinguished by voice. So there are separate glyphs for /s/ and /z/, which are 's' and 'z', respectively. In English the plural of final 's' has a different sound depending on the preceding phoneme. So a word ending with a voiced sound will have a plural with /z/ and a word ending with an unvoiced sound will have an /s/ plural (it's more complex than this, but we'll keep it simple for this example).
The plural of "tok" written in this new English script could be "toks" or "tokz". While "tok" is ambiguous, "toks" and "tokz" are less so, because the final 's' and 'z' give a clue to the voicing of the 'k'. Effectively there are two 'k's: one unvoiced taking the 's' plural and the other voiced taking the 'z' plural. Thus "toks" must be "docks" or "tocks" in normal English, while "tokz" must be "dogs" or "togs".
An Example from the Voynich Manuscript
In the Voynich text we have many words beginning [ch]. They occur at the start of lines less often than they should. We also see words beginning [ych] and [dch], which occur at the start of lines more often than they should. We could suggest that words beginning [ch] sometimes add [y] or [d] when they occur at the start of lines. But how is it decided whether they take [d], [y], or nothing?
We could propose that there are three different values for [ch] (we'll call them [ch1] and [ch2] and [ch3]), and that they act differently at the start of lines. [ch1] occurs at the start of lines without an additional glyph before it, [ch2] takes [y] before it at the start of lines, and [ch3] takes [d]. The reason why they act differently is explained above in the English example: the script doesn't make a distinction between certain phonemes, but the writer knows the distinction and knows that they interact differently at the start of lines. So even though the distinction isn't in the script it is still in the text.
Please remember: the above is just an example of the idea, not a statement of what I think is true.
In any contexts where glyphs interact (such as line start, line end, word break combinations, and maybe others) we might be able to pick up the linguistic knowledge of the writer leaving hints about the phonemic distinction. The knowledge extracted from these hints, if it fits together coherently, could allow us to restore the distinction lost in the text.
I have ideas of how this could be done, but already this comment is quite long. So I'll leave it here for others to respond. I'm wary that we might want a different thread to discuss as we are leaving the original topic somewhat.
Late addition: I wonder if we should call this "orthographic cheshirization"?