The Voynich Ninja

(01-03-2023, 01:52 PM)Arichichi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can someone tell me what are the good reasons to believe that what was common at the time of writing gives actual clues to decode what is uncommon such as Voynichese?

There aren't any. In the very limited common glyph set of Voynichese it would be impossible to include ten symbols exclusively for numbers anyway.

Quote:What are the necessary hypothesis that one needs to take into consideration to ease accepting such a point of view?

The reduplicated words are among the most frequent. You can test your hypothesis by checking if they appear significantly more in close proximity to each other and in some sections, because they would typically appear in recipes.

(28-02-2023, 07:43 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Some of them (in descending order according to the reoccurrence as sequential repetitions in the text):
daiin daiin (25)
qokedy qokedy (11)
<...>

I know this list is meant to be representative ("some of them") rather than exhaustive, but since Arichichi has been doing some further analysis using it, it's probably also worth citing "chol chol" and "qokeedy qokeedy" as especially common word repetitions.  Exact counts will vary depending on transcription and criteria.

Just a couple other observations, in case they suggest anything in this context:

(1) The most frequent exact-word repetitions also involve the most probable word forms, in the sense that each glyph within each one is followed by the glyph that most frequently follows it in either Currier A (chol, daiin) or Currier B (qokeedy), as long as we ignore spaces and calculate first the probability of any following [i] or [e] and, secondarily, the probability of a specific quantity of [i] or [e].  I haven't tried to follow this idea through for the whole list of exact repetitions -- just for the most frequent word in each of Torsten's "series" (ol, daiin, chedy).  But those top-scoring examples suggest that the more probable a word form itself is in the terms I've described, the more likely it also is to occur twice in a row.

(2) Exact-word repetitions are found more often in the middle of lines rather than at (or across) their boundaries, consistent with Emma's hypothesis about line-start and line-end transformations -- although doubled words sometimes appear at the beginning or end of a line.  Marco presents some useful statistics about this earlier in the current thread.  Cases of three or more exact-word repetitions in a row are always in the middle of the line and never touch one or the other edge.

(01-03-2023, 03:20 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(28-02-2023, 07:43 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Some of them (in descending order according to the reoccurrence as sequential repetitions in the text):
daiin daiin (25)
qokedy qokedy (11)
<...>

I know this list is meant to be representative ("some of them") rather than exhaustive, but since Arichichi has been doing some further analysis using it, it's probably also worth citing "chol chol" and "qokeedy qokeedy" as especially common word repetitions. Exact counts will vary depending on transcription and criteria.

Just a couple other observations, in case they suggest anything in this context:

....

Thanks for caring. As evidenced by my breakdown of the patterns previously, into prefixes and suffixes, I was able to unearth predicted words that seem to appear in the Manuscript. (Voynichese.com) I didn't give the utmost attention to repeating patterns afterwards. I just started exploring the hypothesis that there would be some words involved with numbers. I assumed that I needed 9 prefixes and a decent suffix coverage which would account for gender or type of object counted. In a later post in page #10  I shared what so far appears to me as the number pattern. What comes next is translating sequences where hopefully four numbers appear and indicate some collection of years, which would be confirmation of my predictions.

(01-03-2023, 01:06 PM)Arichichi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think there are reasons to believe that a subset of the repeating patterns may lead to finding the numbers through studying how Benford's law can be applied to the statistical occurrence of each of the words.
My guess for now is Prefix={k,ok,qok,t,ot,qot,q,oq,qoq} and suffix={dy,in,ey} may reveal numbers as well as genders

I'm not sure how it will work practically, but try. So what do you think another word doublings with another suffixes  mean?
As well, I don't clearly understand about -dy. If "prefix" (ot, ok, qot, etc.) means a number (a digit) and -dy - a "gender" "suffix", what are -e-, -ee-, -eee-, -ch-, -o-, -che-, etc.? Besides, there are words okdy, otdy, qokdy here, but they seem not to have doublings, they are generally more rare. To the point, qoq-, that you mentioned, appears only once in the text.

(01-03-2023, 03:20 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(2) Exact-word repetitions are found more often in the middle of lines rather than at (or across) their boundaries, consistent with Emma's hypothesis about line-start and line-end transformations -- although doubled words sometimes appear at the beginning or end of a line.  Marco presents some useful statistics about this earlier in the current thread.  Cases of three or more exact-word repetitions in a row are always in the middle of the line and never touch one or the other edge.

I suggested that such repetitions, multiplied words are garbage in the text, that is, in the case of daiin daiin or okedy okedy okedy okedy, you need to leave only one word, and ignore its repetition as empty words made for confusion. Although it can be assumed that they also have a certain function, for example, shifting the next word to a certain position in the text, that is, in the line okedy otedy when adding garbage words to the line (for example, okedy okedy okedy okedy otedy), otedy will appear in fifth position instead of the second. Or these repetitions may have another function. 
Unfortunately, I didn't get acquainted with Emma's hypothesis, I need to find time to read and understand.

I just figured I should be loose on the core of the word and it would depend on the chosen Prefix and suffix. Why I talked about -dy instead of -edy or -eedy is just a matter of factorization of speech. As I ran a script to modify the words as mentioned, with their number counterparts, I figured q, oq, and qoq should be separated by three as well as t, ot, qot and k, ok, qok, with numbers qoq, qok, qot following each other on a specific order, as well as oq, ok, ot and q, k, t. My reasons are no invitation to accept my claim, but I thought that there might be a hebraic influence on the author of the MS since they have a long history of codes, so I started hunting for things such as 666 or 22 which is the number of letters in the Jewish alphabet, until I built my evaluations of the numbers. I found then that the only sequence that spans 8 digits is the following sequence 22212241, which could be interpreted as the 22nd of the 12th month of 1422.

A date check on Wikipedia revealed the following date:

- August 22nd, 1422: use of the Spanish era dating system in the kingdom of Portugal ceases.
This would make sense to then consider August the 12th month.

Am I on the right track? Is this a hit or a miss? Any remarks would be helpful.

How do the vord pairings in Post 93 play out against the various scribal hands?? Do the 25 "daiin daiin" parings occur more or less throughout the VMs text, or are they localized to certain scribes or to certain parts of the VMs text? And what about some of the others with frequent repetition as well?

*
This repetition is all very, very interesting. "Holy, holy, holy." as they used to say in the Middle Ages, would not be out of place. And surely there are other possibilities.

Based only on the written vord, there is as yet no way to establish a hypothetical topic that the VMs text potentially presents. And there is as yet no way to ascertain the mental state of the text's actual author - setting scribal hands aside. However, there are multiple examples of artistic idiosyncrasies and clear instances of deception in the VMs illustrations.

(01-03-2023, 08:08 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do the vord pairings in Post 93 play out against the various scribal hands?? Do the 25 "daiin daiin" parings occur more or less throughout the VMs text, or are they localized to certain scribes or to certain parts of the VMs text? And what about some of the others with frequent repetition as well?

I'm sorry, I need to correct myself. It is my typo, daiin daiin = 15 occurances, not 25.

(01-03-2023, 07:16 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I suggested that such repetitions, multiplied words are garbage in the text

How do you consider repetitions at distance 2 then? They are even more frequent than at distance 1.

(01-03-2023, 01:52 AM)Arichichi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Anton

[Interestingly, in the message before your last one, I rearranged the values unto prefix suffix pairs and it seems 
That there are 10 prefixes and 10 suffixes. The model may predict words that aren't in the list, so it needs to be tested whether words that don't appear in the list and are predicted are actually part of the language or not.]

Hello everyone,
 
If you want to answer, I would like to ask a question to everyone in this group.


Are prefixes written adjacent to the words that follow them (concatenated), or are they written unconcatenated?

Here, for a long time, many researchers have been talking about the existence of some prefixes. Of course, making such assumptions is a natural part and step of research work. But there is a serious problem. There is no single coherent linguistic evidence that clearly proves that presumed prefixes are prefixes. I would appreciate it if you could show the evidence with linguistic methods, if any. I think not a single person in this group or even a single linguist in the world will never be able to do this for sure. Because they are not prefixes. But you may do (if you can) do this by creating an artificial language for VM only then the readings will be artificial rather than realistic.

In this case, does it allow to reach the right results by accepting the assumptions as proven facts and trying to proceed correctly in this type of research?

We read the VM texts clearly enough to understand that they are Old Turkish, and not a single one of these putative "prefixes" is a prefix. And researchers haven't even correctly mapped their phonetic values too any way.

Now let's assume that we can't read these texts either. And I will ask a simple question. Are prefixes written adjacent to the words that follow them, or are they written unconcatenated?

Answer: In some languages they can be written adjacent, in some languages separately.

Now let's just keep asking questions.
Even if we cannot read that text in any natural language text form, we need to look for consistency in the visual pattern of the text examined in terms of prefixes.

If the author of the book (and for author of any books written in any language) writes prefix by concatenating to a word next to it, that author should write the same prefix in same way in every time. That is, if the prefixes are written separately from the word in that author's language, they should always be written separately. However, if the word is written by concatenating to a prefix, it should always be expected to be written adjacent.

However the author of the VM-texts have been write some parts that you interpret as prefixes, both separately and adjacently throughout the texts. Linguists who seeing prefixes in VM papers must explain this issue.

In reality there can be only one explanation here such as 'They are not prefixes but they are root words'. Therefore, these words can also be written alone. When another word adjoins these words, it becomes a compound word. When a word suffix is adjacent to these words, in that case these words are became that word's-root for sure.

Please see here, I have been quoted some images from the original articles and here I have shown the independent writen root word and the cases where the same word is written adjacently by quoting from the same page in VM.
Please see this in item 4: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In other words, it was expected to be written always adjacent or always separately for any prefix. When these are root words, they can sometimes be written together and sometimes separate as a root word. So, this is what I have had seen on photographic patern of word writen structure in VM.

Thanks.

A. Ardıç