The Voynich Ninja

I don't find my question strange, but I will try to rephrase it anyway. If known authors writing in the same languages but in different dialects did not apply the same rules of grammar, we should perhaps be more concerned with the radicals of words, especially those common to both languages, to speed up the overall understanding of the text and leave the refinement of grammar for the next step?

(25-06-2022, 05:13 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't find my question strange, but I will try to rephrase it anyway. If known authors writing in the same languages but in different dialects did not apply the same rules of grammar, we should perhaps be more concerned with the radicals of words, especially those common to both languages, to speed up the overall understanding of the text and leave the refinement of grammar for the next step?

I'm probably not understanding.  I don't think the arguments that some (like me) have made for more grammar in solutions is about refining grammar.  The issue has been that no proposed solution as far as I know has shown any grammar. 

All solutions seem to only provide vocabulary in isolation.  As we've seen, sometimes this can be done to the extent of hundreds of words, in different languages, because it's quite "easy" to read words into Voynichese, particularly if you make a few tweaks.  And because they all do that, none of the proposed solutions manages to distinguish itself from the others.  If it's speed you're after, this approach is counterproductive because in every case so far it has meant someone wasting an awful lot of time and effort on what is a dead end.  

Grammar in the form of coherent sentences is the main indicator that the words found may not be due to coincidence and confirmation bias.  But that doesn't mean we need to assume or expect the grammar to be identical between the scribes.  Instead it makes it more to study them individually.

Thank you, tavie, you explained the situation very clearly. Your point about "tweaks" seems to me to be particularly relevant: if one could consistently identify longer words without any "tweaks" that could also be suggestive of a correct solution. But since spelling irregularities are to be expected in a medieval manuscript, grammar really is the more reliable indicator.

(12-05-2022, 01:10 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco, unfortunately I do not have a list of words in the manuscript by frequency.

A concordance for the VMS is available here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-06-2022, 05:33 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The differences between the scribes (and even between the quires) are why it's best to study individual quires separately.

I have studied what all quires have in common. One result was that all word types in the VMS belong to a single network:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The existence of a single network allows the conclusion that the whole Voynich text is the result of a single system.

"It seems that the existence of a single network for all word types in the VMS would contradict Currier's observation that it is possible to clearly distinguish between two different languages, A and B. ... Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'." [Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6] This result indicates a 'continuous evolution' from 'state A' to 'state B', rather than the existence of two clearly distinguishable languages.

(25-06-2022, 11:46 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The existence of a single network allows the conclusion that the whole Voynich text is the result of a single system.

I haven't always agreed with all of Torsten's statements/opinions, but I do fully agree with this one.
It is my strong opinion that there is a single system.
This is mainly demonstrated by the observation that the character set is the same from beginning to end, even when it is written in several different hands.

Still, there are two very distinct flavours of the text. One does not allow the character combination ed , and the other strongly favours it.

Even though there seems to be a short transition stage in the MS, this difference is very significant, and not yet properly understood.

In the 1990's, the linguist Jacques Guy wrote a paper about this difference, concentrating on the occurrence of o vs. e
What he didn't yet realise is that there is a significant difference between words starting with cho and words starting with che.

In the case of che, as in the most frequent B-language word chedy, the e is strongly bound to the ch.

For a word starting with cho, you can remove the ch and end up with another valid word.
With che this is not the case.

(26-06-2022, 11:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For a word starting with cho, you can remove the ch and end up with another valid word

I think this same with the starting o. There are too many words in the text that exist without it, too.

(26-06-2022, 11:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Still, there are two very distinct flavours of the text. One does not allow the character combination ed , and the other strongly favours it.

Actually, words containing 'ed' are only very rare in Currier A (36 out of 11348 = 0.32%). There are 36 word tokens containing 'ed' in Currier A: 3 x <cheedy>, 2 x <shedy>, 2 x <chedy>, 2 x <okeedy>, <ded>, <aleedy>, <sheedy>, <oteedy>, <opcheedoy>, <cphoeedol>, <shesed>, <chedal>, <esedy>, <kcheed>, <olchedy>, <cthedy>, <shedaiin>, <ofchedol>, <qockhedy>, <chedo>, <qokchedy>, <yched>, <sheedom>, <ypchedy>, <chedain>, <ykeedy>, <lchedy>, <shopolchedy>, <cholkeedy>, <qokedy>, and <qokeed>.

(26-06-2022, 11:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even though there seems to be a short transition stage in the MS, this difference is very significant, and not yet properly understood.

Actually, the word frequencies change all the time from page to page, from Quire to Quire, and also within Currier A and B. The discrimination between Currier A and B describes this observation in a simplified and unsatisfactory way.

The sequence 'ed' is used more and more frequently in Currier B. In Herbal B 16.3 % of the word tokens contain 'ed' (528/3233=16.3%), in Quire 20 (Stars) 19.4% (2073/10673 = 19.4%), and in Quire 13 (Biological) 27.9% (1925/6911 = 27.9%). The increase from 16.3 % to 27.9% is also significant and therefore needs an explanation. 

This is what we mean with "Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the
gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'" (Timm & Schinner, p. 6). See also my page at github.com: sYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I don't assume two languages.
Rather, two characters.
Example in German.
"so nimm ..."
"ihr nehmt  ...."
"du nimmst  ...."
"ich nehme ....

engl.
The differences in language alone
"so nimm ..."
"you take ...."
"you take ...."
"i take ....
I think the differences are in how I write something.
"Du kannst das nehmen, oder, so nimm das."
You can take this, or, so take that.

(26-06-2022, 08:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-06-2022, 11:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Still, there are two very distinct flavours of the text. One does not allow the character combination ed , and the other strongly favours it.

Actually, words containing 'ed' are only very rare in Currier A (36 out of 11348 = 0.32%). There are 36 word tokens containing 'ed' in Currier A: 3 x <cheedy>, 2 x <shedy>, 2 x <chedy>, 2 x <okeedy>, <ded>, <aleedy>, <sheedy>, <oteedy>, <opcheedoy>, <cphoeedol>, <shesed>, <chedal>, <esedy>, <kcheed>, <olchedy>, <cthedy>, <shedaiin>, <ofchedol>, <qockhedy>, <chedo>, <qokchedy>, <yched>, <sheedom>, <ypchedy>, <chedain>, <ykeedy>, <lchedy>, <shopolchedy>, <cholkeedy>, <qokedy>, and <qokeed>.

(26-06-2022, 11:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even though there seems to be a short transition stage in the MS, this difference is very significant, and not yet properly understood.

Actually, the word frequencies change all the time from page to page, from Quire to Quire, and also within Currier A and B. The discrimination between Currier A and B describes this observation in a simplified and unsatisfactory way.

The sequence 'ed' is used more and more frequently in Currier B. In Herbal B 16.3 % of the word tokens contain 'ed' (528/3233=16.3%), in Quire 20 (Stars) 19.4% (2073/10673 = 19.4%), and in Quire 13 (Biological) 27.9% (1925/6911 = 27.9%). The increase from 16.3 % to 27.9% is also significant and therefore needs an explanation. 

This is what we mean with "Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the
gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'" (Timm & Schinner, p. 6). See also my page at github.com: sYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Under the hypothesis: The whole VM is written in the same natural language with the same homophonic cipher system. 
Comparing texts with similar contents, the differences between scribes will be the homophonic parts of the cipher, as if every scribe enciphered what he/she wrote using the homophonics at will.

(26-06-2022, 11:58 PM)Juan_Sali Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Under the hypothesis: The whole VM is written in the same natural language with the same homophonic cipher system.
Comparing texts with similar contents, the differences between scribes will be the homophonic parts of the cipher, as if every scribe enciphered what he/she wrote using the homophonics at will.

I'm not completely sure about it being predominantly homophonic, but my "headcanon" is that there is a certain amount of flexibility in the system for the scribes, and that this would go a long way to explaining the scribal differences and also variety within the same scribe.  But there are other problems that would need to be considered with it being homophonic or indeed other mechanisms that would generate that same flexibility.