07-05-2016, 11:51 AM
07-05-2016, 12:22 PM
Marco, did you notice you reversed the text colors from the colors in the wheel?
In the zodiac wheel
Taurus is cold (on a blue background)
Libra is hot (on a red background)
It's a small detail but I found myself constantly having to reverse my thoughts to put them back to the original.
In the zodiac wheel
Taurus is cold (on a blue background)
Libra is hot (on a red background)
It's a small detail but I found myself constantly having to reverse my thoughts to put them back to the original.07-05-2016, 11:55 PM
Regarding the title post by Marco, I would suggest that for such kind of contextual analysis to be systematic, the following should be checked.
Let's say we have two sets of objects (A and B) and a set of contextually homogenous folios further subdivided into two folio subsets (I and II). Now, therefore:
1) Are the matches A to I and B to II unanimous? In other words, do objects of the A set not appear in the folio subset II, neither B in subset I?
2) Do matches decribed in item 1) above appear consistently in all folios across subsets? Or there are any folios where the respective objects are absent?
3) Are there any other objects beside those belonging to sets A and B that would exhibit similar behaviour in regard to folio subsets I and II?
4) Do objects of the A and B sets appear consistently in the same sub-context within a folio (e.g. in the same place of the folio, near similar objects in folios etc.)
5) Are object sets A and B really "sets" (i.e. are they homogenous in themselves), or they are rather artificial constructs by the subjective observer?
Let's say we have two sets of objects (A and B) and a set of contextually homogenous folios further subdivided into two folio subsets (I and II). Now, therefore:
1) Are the matches A to I and B to II unanimous? In other words, do objects of the A set not appear in the folio subset II, neither B in subset I?
2) Do matches decribed in item 1) above appear consistently in all folios across subsets? Or there are any folios where the respective objects are absent?
3) Are there any other objects beside those belonging to sets A and B that would exhibit similar behaviour in regard to folio subsets I and II?
4) Do objects of the A and B sets appear consistently in the same sub-context within a folio (e.g. in the same place of the folio, near similar objects in folios etc.)
5) Are object sets A and B really "sets" (i.e. are they homogenous in themselves), or they are rather artificial constructs by the subjective observer?
08-05-2016, 08:39 AM
Thank you, Anton! The agenda you propose seems to me very useful. It will be fun to research this stuff!
Just to be sure I understand, I will discuss a specific example:
Voynichese.com shows that this requisite is satisfied, but one has to ignore nymph labels. So, sets I and II are actually composed of uniformly organized sections of text (the circulate bands), not whole folios.
This is not always the case and research for some kind of plausible spelling variation that could explain this will undoubtedly be useful. But see my reply to (5) below.
If you are referring to other words showing unanimity with respect to A and B, in my intention, the words I selected are those with the largest “coverage” of folios. There likely are two words X and Y that respectively appear only in one folio of I and one folio of II.
On the other hand, there are other objects that could correspond to other similarly regular partitions of the zodiac (in classical astrology, associated with the elements, the seasons and other qualities). This is another interesting area of investigation (see “water” in the first post, as an example of what I am thinking of).
Given that I am only considering the text in circles, there is some consistency in the organization of the text. Folios display a large degree of variation, but some folios look rather similar from the point of view of the general graphic organization (e.g. positioning of the nymphs). A detailed, word-by-word, comparison between the circular text in similar folios is something I am definitely interested in attempting.
I guess you are here referring to the differences between EVA:chedal and chedy (for instance). This point is particularly interesting, because in order to search for (2) one has to introduce some lexical flexibility. It is good that (1) constraints the amount of flexibility that can be introduced without losing unanimity. Sticking to exact matches (no flexibility) would remove doubts about subjectivity, but it would also produce more limited consistency (point 2).
I guess I could work both ways:
Please, let me know if I have misunderstood anything of what you wrote.
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding the title post by Marco, I would suggest that for such kind of contextual analysis to be systematic, the following should be checked.
Let's say we have two sets of objects (A and B) and a set of contextually homogenous folios further subdivided into two folio subsets (I and II).
Just to be sure I understand, I will discuss a specific example:
- A Voynichese word(s) hypothetically denoting “warm” signs in classical astrology (Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, Aquarius) shed-
- B Voynicese word(s) hypothetically denotiing “cold” signs in classical astrology (Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, Pisces) ched-
- I f70v1 "Aries dark", You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "Aries light", f72r2 Gemini, f72v3 Leo, f72v1 Libra, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Sagittarius
- II You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Taurus light, f72r1 Taurus dark, f72r3 Cancer, f72v2 Virgo, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Scorpio, f70v2 Pisces
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) Are the matches A to I and B to II unanimous? In other words, do objects of the A set not appear in the folio subset II, neither B in subset I?
Voynichese.com shows that this requisite is satisfied, but one has to ignore nymph labels. So, sets I and II are actually composed of uniformly organized sections of text (the circulate bands), not whole folios.
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) Do matches decribed in item 1) above appear consistently in all folios across subsets? Or there are any folios where the respective objects are absent?
This is not always the case and research for some kind of plausible spelling variation that could explain this will undoubtedly be useful. But see my reply to (5) below.
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.3) Are there any other objects beside those belonging to sets A and B that would exhibit similar behaviour in regard to folio subsets I and II?
If you are referring to other words showing unanimity with respect to A and B, in my intention, the words I selected are those with the largest “coverage” of folios. There likely are two words X and Y that respectively appear only in one folio of I and one folio of II.
On the other hand, there are other objects that could correspond to other similarly regular partitions of the zodiac (in classical astrology, associated with the elements, the seasons and other qualities). This is another interesting area of investigation (see “water” in the first post, as an example of what I am thinking of).
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.4) Do objects of the A and B sets appear consistently in the same sub-context within a folio (e.g. in the same place of the folio, near similar objects in folios etc.)
Given that I am only considering the text in circles, there is some consistency in the organization of the text. Folios display a large degree of variation, but some folios look rather similar from the point of view of the general graphic organization (e.g. positioning of the nymphs). A detailed, word-by-word, comparison between the circular text in similar folios is something I am definitely interested in attempting.
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.5) Are object sets A and B really "sets" (i.e. are they homogenous in themselves), or they are rather artificial constructs by the subjective observer?
I guess you are here referring to the differences between EVA:chedal and chedy (for instance). This point is particularly interesting, because in order to search for (2) one has to introduce some lexical flexibility. It is good that (1) constraints the amount of flexibility that can be introduced without losing unanimity. Sticking to exact matches (no flexibility) would remove doubts about subjectivity, but it would also produce more limited consistency (point 2).
I guess I could work both ways:
- analyzing couples of exact words (e.g. chedy and Shedy)
- analyzing couples of patterns that could provide more consistency at the expense of some risk of being subjective (e.g. ched- and Shed-)
Please, let me know if I have misunderstood anything of what you wrote.
08-05-2016, 04:10 PM
Hi Marco,
Yes you interpret my points exactly as I meant them.
The biggest problem that I see is point 5), because, being unaware of the rules according to which the vords are constructed, and, hence, being unaware of the logic of mappings between Voynichese and plain text in any language understandable by us (i.e. English), we cannot be realy sure if it is appropriate to mix, e.g., chedy and chedal into the same set, unless we can observe some context that justifies that.
With one-member sets of objects, we do not have this problem. E.g. if folio subset I features only shedy, and folio subset II features only chedy, we can then make deductions about chedy and shedy being "counterparts" in a certain respect, the exact kind of this "respect" being suggested by the contextual difference between folio subsets I and II (cold vs warm signs or otherwise).
What I mean by "observing some context that justifies that" is best illustrated with an example. Consider object sets of f68r1 and f68r2 (Voynich "stars"). I omit the trail of consideration (which can be found in my blog post), but those may well be considered as homogenous and (as an additional nice circumstance) complete sets of objects (notwithstanding that their morphology differs a good deal) - just because of the context in which they are encountered in f68r1 and f68r2. Hence, we can rely on those sets as on real "sets" when discussing those vords' appearance in other places in the VMS.
Yes you interpret my points exactly as I meant them.
The biggest problem that I see is point 5), because, being unaware of the rules according to which the vords are constructed, and, hence, being unaware of the logic of mappings between Voynichese and plain text in any language understandable by us (i.e. English), we cannot be realy sure if it is appropriate to mix, e.g., chedy and chedal into the same set, unless we can observe some context that justifies that.
With one-member sets of objects, we do not have this problem. E.g. if folio subset I features only shedy, and folio subset II features only chedy, we can then make deductions about chedy and shedy being "counterparts" in a certain respect, the exact kind of this "respect" being suggested by the contextual difference between folio subsets I and II (cold vs warm signs or otherwise).
What I mean by "observing some context that justifies that" is best illustrated with an example. Consider object sets of f68r1 and f68r2 (Voynich "stars"). I omit the trail of consideration (which can be found in my blog post), but those may well be considered as homogenous and (as an additional nice circumstance) complete sets of objects (notwithstanding that their morphology differs a good deal) - just because of the context in which they are encountered in f68r1 and f68r2. Hence, we can rely on those sets as on real "sets" when discussing those vords' appearance in other places in the VMS.
26-05-2016, 11:55 AM
Marco,
This is a very good thread and there is a nice evolution in your work.
As you remember our mails on the herbal of Cadamosto it follows almost the same classification of "Galenic qualities".
As i suggested then, i would like to repeat that the letters (i then wrote gallow character) could represent a number 1,2,3 or 4 (or more) at a given position which is reference to a "quality".
That means that the first and/or the last letter of any word, are actually a number and the remainder is a real word or a lookup-up-in-a table word.
For example, these are possible
dain => d=8 + ain = ?
chedy => che=? + dy= 89
If you make a classification based on these as well there could be more logic involved.
PS.
Notice that this notation looks like "the last page marginalia".
-----------
Addition 1 (Cresques):
the moon is the nature of water, cold and damp
the sun has the nature of fire, hot and dry
-----------
Addition 2:
And to go even further: the vords could also be composed in sections, where each section represents a "quality".
for example vord ABcdEF could contain sections AB=water=o/fire=qo cd=male/female EF=damp/dry/hot/cold
The possible letters on those positions following my intense research prove to be very strict, so why not assume that those positions are an abbrev. for the mentioned "qualities" ?
the moon, water, cold, damp
the sun, fire, hot , dry
[GR]
το φεγγάρι, το νερό, το κρύο, την υγρασία
ο ήλιος, η φωτιά, καυτό, ξηρό
to fengári , to neró , to krýo , tin ygrasía
o ílios , i fotiá , kaftó, xiró
[PORT]
a lua, água, frio, úmido
o sol, fogo, quente, seco
This is a very good thread and there is a nice evolution in your work.
As you remember our mails on the herbal of Cadamosto it follows almost the same classification of "Galenic qualities".
As i suggested then, i would like to repeat that the letters (i then wrote gallow character) could represent a number 1,2,3 or 4 (or more) at a given position which is reference to a "quality".
That means that the first and/or the last letter of any word, are actually a number and the remainder is a real word or a lookup-up-in-a table word.
For example, these are possible
dain => d=8 + ain = ?
chedy => che=? + dy= 89
If you make a classification based on these as well there could be more logic involved.
PS.
Notice that this notation looks like "the last page marginalia".
-----------
Addition 1 (Cresques):
the moon is the nature of water, cold and damp
the sun has the nature of fire, hot and dry
-----------
Addition 2:
And to go even further: the vords could also be composed in sections, where each section represents a "quality".
for example vord ABcdEF could contain sections AB=water=o/fire=qo cd=male/female EF=damp/dry/hot/cold
The possible letters on those positions following my intense research prove to be very strict, so why not assume that those positions are an abbrev. for the mentioned "qualities" ?
the moon, water, cold, damp
the sun, fire, hot , dry
[GR]
το φεγγάρι, το νερό, το κρύο, την υγρασία
ο ήλιος, η φωτιά, καυτό, ξηρό
to fengári , to neró , to krýo , tin ygrasía
o ílios , i fotiá , kaftó, xiró
[PORT]
a lua, água, frio, úmido
o sol, fogo, quente, seco
23-10-2016, 11:14 AM
Apologies for going back so far, but I'm still catching up ...
I get what you're saying about the Voynich, but as Koen pointed out natural laanguages do indeed do this, even English, if you look past the borrowings. 'Sagittarius' (like many constellation names) is conceptual - rendered literally into English it would be 'arrower', i.e someone who uses (or makes, the Latin sagittarius could mean either depending on context) arrows. An arrow-man. Yes, 'man', because we have the male -us ending. So rather than being originally a name it was a conceptual description, 'male arrow user', it became just a name in English with the loss of Latin as an everyday language in modern times (a couple of hundred years).
'Kitten' is literally a diminutive of 'cat', 'iittle cat', which is the way many languages describe young animals; 'foal' is a a very old world for a young animal of many species. 'cub' and 'puppy' are relatively late (16th C or so) imports into English which originally meant something other than what they mean today. 'Book' and the German 'Buch' both derive from an ancient word for the beech tree, which was used for writing, just as the French and Latin livre and liber derive from a word for tree bark.
In other words, many if not most words in natural languages were originally 'conceptual' as you describe. In English particularly the conceptual nature of lot of words has been obscured by usage and changes in spelling and imports from other languages over the centuries, and the root of some words (like 'arrow') are so ancient that their descriptive nature, if there was one, has been long forgotten.
That said, as you say a lot of people have forgotten this way of thinking.
(07-05-2016, 02:08 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:In natural language we make up names for things like Sagittarius.
If, however, you are describing Sagittarius in a conceptual way, you might name it Voynich-style with something like ani (for animal) + sht (for shoot, as in shooting an arrow).
Quote:In English we say dog for a grown dog and puppy for a young one. In some languages they say dog for the grown dog and young-dog for the young one rather than making up a new word for the young one (they don't have words like kitten, puppy, cub, foal, etc.). This means a large number of concepts are expressed with a smaller number of syllables or words and it seems to work perfectly well.
I get what you're saying about the Voynich, but as Koen pointed out natural laanguages do indeed do this, even English, if you look past the borrowings. 'Sagittarius' (like many constellation names) is conceptual - rendered literally into English it would be 'arrower', i.e someone who uses (or makes, the Latin sagittarius could mean either depending on context) arrows. An arrow-man. Yes, 'man', because we have the male -us ending. So rather than being originally a name it was a conceptual description, 'male arrow user', it became just a name in English with the loss of Latin as an everyday language in modern times (a couple of hundred years).
'Kitten' is literally a diminutive of 'cat', 'iittle cat', which is the way many languages describe young animals; 'foal' is a a very old world for a young animal of many species. 'cub' and 'puppy' are relatively late (16th C or so) imports into English which originally meant something other than what they mean today. 'Book' and the German 'Buch' both derive from an ancient word for the beech tree, which was used for writing, just as the French and Latin livre and liber derive from a word for tree bark.
In other words, many if not most words in natural languages were originally 'conceptual' as you describe. In English particularly the conceptual nature of lot of words has been obscured by usage and changes in spelling and imports from other languages over the centuries, and the root of some words (like 'arrow') are so ancient that their descriptive nature, if there was one, has been long forgotten.
That said, as you say a lot of people have forgotten this way of thinking.
12-11-2016, 11:50 AM
In the earlier part of the thread, the conversation seemed to be going along the lines of ... the text works as if it uses concept-signs (and then modifers), just as hieroglyphics and Chinese characters do..
and the order of elements is not "oak-root" but "root-oak" ... so far so good.
What I don't understand is how the thread, looking as if the next logical step would be to concur pretty much with Stolfi's view that ..
.. suddenly the thread veered back to the "all European" idea, as if we have found that the text looks like a bird, flies like a bird and chirps like a bird.. but then said "so it's a fish that acts like a bird".
Why not just suppose we are dealing with a mixture of characters and added modifiers? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't see why it should be necessary to imagine an Indo-European language acting like a non-European language, when the simpler answer is.. what Stolfi said.
and the order of elements is not "oak-root" but "root-oak" ... so far so good.
What I don't understand is how the thread, looking as if the next logical step would be to concur pretty much with Stolfi's view that ..
Quote:Voynichese may not be Chinese, of course... [but] If Voynichese is an unencrypted natural language (which, IMHO, is still the most likely alternative), then it is almost certainly not an Indo-European one.
(1998).
.. suddenly the thread veered back to the "all European" idea, as if we have found that the text looks like a bird, flies like a bird and chirps like a bird.. but then said "so it's a fish that acts like a bird".
Why not just suppose we are dealing with a mixture of characters and added modifiers? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't see why it should be necessary to imagine an Indo-European language acting like a non-European language, when the simpler answer is.. what Stolfi said.
12-11-2016, 09:45 PM
(12-11-2016, 11:50 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why not just suppose we are dealing with a mixture of characters and added modifiers? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't see why it should be necessary to imagine an Indo-European language acting like a non-European language, when the simpler answer is.. what Stolfi said.
Straightforward answer: Because most people on this board do not speak Chinese
More lengthy answer: Chinese and Egyptian use modifiers because their scripts are not as phonetic as a plain alphabet. Chinese adds modifying characters that "help" you figure out the pronunciation of a word:
女 = nǚ (woman)
馬 = mā (horse)
媽 = mǎ (mother - the "馬" has been added to the woman character "女" to modify its pronunciation)
With an alphabetic script (as Voynich appears to be) however, these modifiers would be unnecessary. We would just write out the correct pronunciation.
13-11-2016, 12:45 AM
(12-11-2016, 09:45 PM)Witch Mountain Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More lengthy answer: Chinese and Egyptian use modifiers because their scripts are not as phonetic as a plain alphabet. Chinese adds modifying characters that "help" you figure out the pronunciation of a word:
女 = nǚ (woman)
馬 = mā (horse)
媽 = mǎ (mother - the "馬" has been added to the woman character "女" to modify its pronunciation)
...
I don't want to nitpick, but I would like it be correct for the record... it's the character on the left that has been "added" in the modifier sense. In both Chinese and Japanese (which inherited the Kanji characters from Chinese) the radical (the "modifier") is on the left—the base concept on the right. And one doesn't have to specifically refer to pronunciation. One can read Chinese without knowing a single thing about the spoken language or how it sounds, and there are many different mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese that use the same character set. The inability to understand the spoken language while still being able to intercommunicate through writing, as happens in China, is relevant because the VMS text may be a constructed language, in which case there may not be any associated sounds.
Since I'm the one who typically refers to some of the VMS characters as possible modifiers (it's a term I've been using for years), I'd like to point out that I mean "modifiers" in the broad sense. Radicals (modifiers) in Chinese are just one example. The modifier can work in slightly different ways in other languages (changing gender from male to female, changing a noun into an adjective, changing singular to plural). Chinese uses radicals (or sometimes doubling of characters), some of the other Asian languages use position, some languages use characters (as we use "s" to create plurals), some use marks (e.g., dots, lines), and some use subtle adjustments of the shape of the character (not uncommon in Malaysian scripts).
In Korean, there's a grammatical construction we don't have in English, representing a "topic" marker, so you can sort out what is being spoken about in the sentence (the grammar is quite different from English). If the context is obvious, they sometimes leave out the topic marker, so it may not even be consistently applied. Perhaps the VMS text has modifiers or markers different from those that are common to most languages.
We don't know whether there are modifiers in the VMS (beyond possible grammatical modifiers that are common to many languages), but we have to keep open to the possibility and I suspect that there might be, based on the frequency and positional characteristics of some of the glyphs.