I have had the following words referred to me as being unusual:
yshealkair
saiichor
cthoepain
aldalosam
olfsheoral
ataseos
etolctheol
ainarals
cfarasr
ychopordg
lkshykchy
arorochees
oraryteop
qekeochor
doiisaly
lcheolshedy
aiiikhedy
ochepalain
rfchykchey
lkarshar
oinysarx
oloeorain
airorlchy
soefchocphy
qoshocphy
dolchsyckheol
dlocta
efaloir
sykeeeochy
deeamshol
dylchsody
qoekeeykeody
oesearees
cthachcthy
olsheeosol
ycheeytydaiin
eeoseeos
oraroekeol
scseykcheol
aiisockhy
qochoithy
sochorcfhy
dorkcheky
rchealcham
sydarary
iiincheom
salshcthdy
orarorchy
qocpheeckhy
lkarchees
ycheealkaiin
ctheockhosho
cthaichar
odeeeeodl
cthdaoto
samchorly
oqoeeosain
oepchksheey
ydaraishy
cpholrory
oshyteed
qosheckhhy
arolsas
ysarasod
dalaldam
oschotshl
etodaithey
olkchokeedy
ararchodaiin
aithchr
socfchees
These may not be a particularly good collection of unusual words.
I tend to be more interested in words with unusual glyph sequence rather than those words that are unusually long.
I think to be an unusual word it is not necessary that the word occurs only once in the text, but rather that it is more dissimilar from other words.
I am inclined to ignore the first words of paragraph as they tend to seem to start with gallows characters.
Of course, with my current way of thinking the unusual words likely correspond with the genuine text, whilst the usual words are more likely to be fillers.
It's better to start with the criteria, and then generate list. The most straightforward way to define "unusual words" (or "usual") is creating regular expression (or CFG or automata).
To me good candidates for "unusual words" are words where:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
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 course, even if the least common words tend to correspond with authentic text it follows that there will be some authentic words that are quite common. Common authentic words like "and" will still be common amongst the filler text which could make distinguishing between filler words and common non-filler words harder. I would have thought that for filler text word clustering will be more prevalent than one sees will common non-filler text words. So for non-filler words there may be many instances of the same word, but little word clustering around that word. Of course, there is further difficulty in that word clustering occurs with genuine words such as in English: cat, cut, put, pat, cap, cup, can, pan etc.
(08-09-2023, 07:09 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The most straightforward way to define "unusual words" (or "usual") is creating regular expression (or CFG or automata).
This is the best feature of your app.
Words with 3 gallows:
Code:
http://daiin.net/browser/search.html?mode=web&pattern=.*([tkpf].*){3}
(Copy-paste the URL, the forum does not allow a link for some reason.)
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: 3345/8095
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: 7154/8095
As this is a much simplified version of Massimiliano Zattera's word grammar, I'm surprised the counts are so low... Probably something's wrong in there. Or
I + gallows and final
g should be allowed.
(09-09-2023, 03:51 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (08-09-2023, 07:09 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The most straightforward way to define "unusual words" (or "usual") is creating regular expression (or CFG or automata).
This is the best feature of your app.
Words with 3 gallows: Code:
http://daiin.net/browser/search.html?mode=web&pattern=.*([tkpf].*){3}
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: 3345/8095
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: 7154/8095
As this is a much simplified version of Massimiliano Zattera's word grammar, I'm surprised the counts are so low... Probably something's wrong in there. Or I + gallows and final g should be allowed.
The only thing I should say is that I would expect unusual words to be less likely to conform to any standard patterns. By contrast my thinking is that "filler" words would be more likely to conform to a standard formula or expression.
In fact it seems to me that the overwhelming weight of Voynich research has been looking at the patterns and structures of those words that I see as fillers not the unusual words that I am most interested in which I think are often discounted as though they were just background noise.
(09-09-2023, 05:43 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In fact it seems to me that the overwhelming weight of Voynich research has been looking at the patterns and structures of those words that I see as fillers not the unusual words that I am most interested in which I think are often discounted as though they were just background noise.
How can we prove which scenario is closest to the truth?
(10-09-2023, 11:27 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (09-09-2023, 05:43 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In fact it seems to me that the overwhelming weight of Voynich research has been looking at the patterns and structures of those words that I see as fillers not the unusual words that I am most interested in which I think are often discounted as though they were just background noise.
How can we prove which scenario is closest to the truth?
That's an excellent question.
I suppose what needs to be done is to well-define the filler text as much as possible, which is of course means that there is value in studying the patterns and structure of Voynichese even where that pattern and structure is just the pattern and structure of the filler text. If one understands the pattern and structure of the filler text then one can more easily identify what is the non-filler meaningful text.
I am reminded of a discussion on a radio programme about Chaos theory that I listened to many years ago. The discussion related to a secret conversation that had been recorded between two people. It wasn't possible to determine what was being said from the recording of the conversation as a loud vacuum cleaner what turned on throughout the conversation(presumably to conceal the words). However the vacuum cleaner produced a very repetitive sound, which was very predictable, whereas the sound of the conversation was much much less predictable. So the vacuum cleaner sound could be removed from the recording to reveal the sound of the conversation. When one thinks of this scenario one might imagine the conversation as the pattern and the sound of the vacuum cleaner as the noise, but, in fact, when analysing it one is best suited to viewing the vacuum cleaner as the pattern and the conversation as the noise.
I am not sure how easy it is to prove either scenario. I think it is best to explore the implications of the different scenarios and see where they take one.
If there is a filler text then, as with any other meaningless text, there must be a formula or mechanism by which it was generated. So defining and understanding how the meaningless text was generated is important. Given the notion that not all text is filler or meaningless this helps account for text that may not seem to fit the mechanism or formula by which the meaningful text was generated.