Here is the data from other historical reference works, as you can see root should be fairly obvious to spot when comparing Herbal vs other sections.
[
attachment=17680]
the difference is also extreme when looking at books that contain herbal along with other sections
[
attachment=17681]
(Yesterday, 08:35 PM)npcompl33t Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, that is ultimately what I did. I was hoping that I could identify candidate words in both and perhaps establish some sort of correspondence.
You may find You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. interesting.
All the best, --stolfi
(Today, 01:29 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 08:35 PM)npcompl33t Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, that is ultimately what I did. I was hoping that I could identify candidate words in both and perhaps establish some sort of correspondence.
You may find You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. interesting.
All the best, --stolfi
Thanks for sharing. I agree that Herbal A and Herbal B are likely not true different 'languages'. I am attempting to identify some of the specific transformation rules you hypothesize in your post. I have a few possible candidates, but the biggest issue is that enough arbitrary transformations can transform words into those resembling another language, especially with smaller words.
Therefore before I feel confident in any voynich mappings, I want to show i can detect these types of changes by planting fake transformation rules into real historical texts then testing how successfully i can recover them, but this is still a work-in-progress.