(Yesterday, 04:07 AM)npcompl33t Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So why is x in Herbal B and not Herbal A?
Herbal-A and Herbal-B probably had some difference histories, like being copied from two independent herbals or in two in separate sessions. So maybe the Author wrote "toxic" in one and used '☠" in the other.
Or maybe he sorted all plants into harmless ones that can be consumed regularly (Herbal-A) and plants that should be consumed only when needed (Herbal-B), some of them being particularly ☠.
All the best, --stolfi
(Yesterday, 11:10 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Herbal-A and Herbal-B probably had some difference histories, like being copied from two independent herbals or in two in separate sessions. So maybe the Author wrote "toxic" in one and used '☠" in the other.
Or maybe he sorted all plants into harmless ones that can be consumed regularly (Herbal-A) and plants that should be consumed only when needed (Herbal-B), some of them being particularly ☠.
So they wrote about toxic and non-toxic plants in a completely different language? And i take it then that the rosettes is mostly about poisonous things? Come on you are smarter than that.
(Yesterday, 12:37 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Yesterday, 12:30 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So yes, I would agree there is progression in the negations as the Rohonc Codex was written.
I realize your answer may be quite speculative, but I am curious what you think. Do you think this is script evolution, i.e. it represents a stable (probably natural) language that was being represented differently, or language evolution, i.e. a conlang that was changing
I would also be interested in your opinion on this Rafal!
(Yesterday, 10:58 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My lalamo says that the German spoken in the Frankfurt area differs from standard German in ways that resemble the A/B differences: "swallows word endings (e.g., haben becomes hawn), and changes the "ch" sound to a soft "sch" sound (making ich sound like isch)". It also tells me that Norwegian and Danish are almost the same language, but Norwegian pronunciation is "clear, uses distinct pitch accents (tones), and consonants are pronounced crisply" whereas in Danish "soft consonants like d, g, and b often turn into semi-vowels or disappear entirely", and there is a phonemic glottal catch that is absent in Norwegian.
I checked you on this theory already in another thread, and the changes do not even come remotely close! I will reshare the chart so you stop using this as an explanation.
The differences are far greater than the German differences you are mentioning.
They are an entire order of magnitude off from the observed differences.
[
attachment=18516]
(Yesterday, 01:07 PM)npcompl33t Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I checked you on this theory already in another thread, and the changes do not even come remotely close! I will reshare the chart so you stop using this as an explanation.
C'm'on! The German spelling changes that I proposed in that post were
tiny. Yet apparently they were already sufficient to make the divergence between the
same text with the original and modified spelling (0.077) as large as the difference between
different texts from two of your "Golf" sub-sections (the left end of the second blue bar).
And that was just a change of
spelling. A change of
dialect can be arbitrarily large, because there is no clear distinction between dialects and languages. Thus it can be as small as UK vs. US English (colour/color etc.) all the way to Hungarian vs. Cantonese.
All the best, --stolfi
You see the right side correct? And you were asking about the differences between A and B, which are essentially dipoles consisting of the largest differences?
So you agree that these spelling changes, which are the specific ones you yourself called out in your immediately preceding post, do constitute tiny changes that could not be the source of the difference?
To be clear my official assertion was the differences between golf sections do not constitute an entirely different dialect, I say that on the golf thread.
Is your position now A and B must represent fully different dialects? Or between other sections within A? Be specific and I can test it. I have lots of German in different dialects.