18-02-2016, 11:20 PM
Many people who have studied the text of the Voynich Manuscript have come to see the character [n] as not different or independent from [i]. Either it they see it as simply a final variant or they see [in], [iin], and [iiin] as single characters. I'm slowly believing that one of these is likely to be true.
But how can we prove that this is the case? The three bits of evidence I would put forward are:
1) the strong link between [i] sequences and [n]: over 90% of [i] are followed by another [i] or [n], and something like 97% of [n] are preceded by [i]; and
2) [i] and [n] have complementary distribution at the end of words: [i] is practically never word final while [n] is practically always word final; and
2) both [i] and [n] greatly prefer following [a] than [o]: the ratio is 20:1 and 25:1 respectively.
What else could we say to strengthen the case, and what would prove it?
But how can we prove that this is the case? The three bits of evidence I would put forward are:
1) the strong link between [i] sequences and [n]: over 90% of [i] are followed by another [i] or [n], and something like 97% of [n] are preceded by [i]; and
2) [i] and [n] have complementary distribution at the end of words: [i] is practically never word final while [n] is practically always word final; and
2) both [i] and [n] greatly prefer following [a] than [o]: the ratio is 20:1 and 25:1 respectively.
What else could we say to strengthen the case, and what would prove it?