The Voynich Ninja

(15-09-2016, 02:28 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hey all, I've been trying to see if I could prove that spaces (as written) in the VMS are fake. I found some things which may indicate patterns across words, but I submit the images for your review:

<otchordy> split two different ways on the same page?


<otchordy> and <opchordy> in the text as 1, 2, or 3 words:

And then there is this beauty, where <kydaiin> repeats, but the combinations of <ch-ky> and <sh-ky> are also interesting:



Hope this might catch your interest!

I Thomas,
I find this very interesting!
My impression is that there certainly is something going on with Voynichese spacing. This also includes the two categories of dubious cases with label-related words discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and accounting for 11% of the labels.

Just an idea: the phenomenon could be similar to what can be observed in some Latin manuscripts.
These examples are from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (it presents side by side similar passages from the bible). In these cases, the same words have different spacing:

20r: 
pones eos utclybanu ignisin
poneses ut clybanu ignis in

21v:
hic: accipiet ...
hicaccipiet ...


22v:
... bndict9 dnsqm
benedictus dns qm

28r:
....vanalo
....vana lo

28v:
usq; ad domu di
usq; addomudi
ad domum dei

29r:
tu es-ipse:rex ms-&:ds-ms:
tues ipse rex ms & dsms.

Could this be something similar to what you observed in the VMS?

The biggest problem I encountered when transcribing was to decide which spaces are real word spaces and which are not, e.g. they are just unintentional slightly wider gaps between characters.

I quickly searched for an example and came up with the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  .

First word last line, where are the spaces? Same for the word above that.

The line starting tiiin has ol in the middle, or should that be o l ?

The people making the old transcriptions may well have decided such questions on the basis of whether they recognised a known word...

I once thought that some machine analysis of spaces would be helpful, roughly as follows:

1) A threshold for a space is estimated for a given folio.
2) The text in the given folio is parced for spaces based on whether the distance between characters does exceed the threshold.

I think that any future transcription should simply include markup for a space and a dubious space. It might even have already been done.

Edit (addition that the forum software won't let me put in a separate post): You've posted some very nice examples of space variations, Marco.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My main point:

Based on my observations so far (which are ongoing and still tentative), I think you may find that the difference between a "dubious space" and a "space" is not one of physical distance, but one of content.

---

And a question to moderators... Why does the software combine two different posts that are responses to two different people on two different subjects into the same post? It's very disconcerting for the poster, confusing to readers, and inconvenient for those who want to specifically respond to one or the other (or specifically "thank" one or the other), not both.

Quote:And a question to moderators... Why does the software combine two different posts that are responses to two different people on two different subjects into the same post? It's very disconcerting for the poster, confusing to readers, and inconvenient for those who want to specifically respond to one or the other (or specifically "thank" one or the other), not both.

The software does not identify a "response", it's not like facebook.

Combining subsequent posts occurs within a specified time range. This is tunable and can be disabled.

(Next time please refer your technical questions to the Tech Support subforum).

(16-09-2016, 11:32 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Could this be something similar to what you observed in the VMS?

Hi Marco,
Thank you for the examples. I see your point - maybe this is what happens in the VMS too, then...

JKP, Thomas, thank you for your work on the text analysis, for bringing up the issues of spaces, null words, word structure in the VMs etc. I've found many important points for myself, moreover, I want to do my bit, too. 
I've made a comparative table of word combinations (pairs) with the two VMs words: ol and qol. 
[attachment=625]

This short table shows only the matched combinations, but there are many other matched and not matched ones in the VMs. Anyway, I didn't expect 100% matching between them. Is that enough to conclude that ol and qol are the same words and q-glyph is a null character? Honestly, it seemed to me very promising idea in spite of that this table can't be a master card.  It could be successful for my theory, as well (I won't go into details here).
 I want to pay your attention to the word combinations from the group of "okedy" and "otedy" words. The difference is in e, ee, eee, ch, and, of course, in the "q"-presence. There are all the combinations (if I didn't miss some):
1) 
okedy okedy
okedy okeedy 
okeedy okchdy
okedy qokeedy
okeedy qokedy
qokeedy okeedy
qokeedy okedy
qokedy qokedy
qokedy qokeedy
qokeedy qokedy
qokeedy qokeedy
qokedy qokchdy
qokeedy qokchdy
qokchdy qokedy
qokchdy qokchdy
2)
otedy okedy
otedy okeedy
oteedy okedy
otedy qokchdy
oteedy qokeedy
qotedy okeedy
qoteedy okeedy
qotedy okchdy
qoteedy qokeedy
qotchdy qokchdy

Personally I find the variety of these incredibly similar word pairs strange. I'm at a loss and can't decide whether they are only two real word combinations or all these in their distinctions. I think, it could be a stronger argument in favour of the supposition about null "q"-character. On the other hand, in this case, if we mentally take away all the q-characters we get You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. 
The excessive richness with these words in the "balneo-" and "recies-" sections is too strange, even for incantations.
Ultimately, I'm still confused. Maybe, someone has a fresh explanation for this phenomenon.

(16-09-2016, 11:00 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP, Thomas, thank you for your work on the text analysis, for bringing up the issues of spaces, null words, word structure in the VMs etc. I've found many important points for myself, moreover, I want to do my bit, too. 
I've made a comparative table of word combinations (pairs) with the two VMs words: ol and qol. 


This table shows only the matched combinations, but there are many other matched and not matched ones in the VMs. Anyway, I didn't expect 100% matching between them. Is that enough to conclude that ol and qol are the same words and q-glyph is a null character? Honestly, it seemed to me very promising idea in spite of that this table can't be a master card.  It could be successful for my theory, as well (I wont go into details here).
 I want to pay your attention to the word combinations from the group of "okedy" and "otedy" words. The difference is in e, ee, eee, ch, and, of course, in the "q"-presence. There are all the combinations (if I didn't miss some):
1) 
okedy okedy
okedy okeedy 
... [part of the list deleted for brevity]
qoteedy qokeedy
qotchdy qokchdy

Personally I find the variety of these incredibly similar word pairs strange. I'm at a loss and can't decide whether they are only two real word combinations or all these in their distinctions. I think, it could be a stronger argument in favour of the supposition about null "q"-character. On the other hand, in this case, if we mentally take away all the q-characters we get You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. 
The excessive richness with these words in the "balneo-" and "recies-" sections is too strange, even for incantations.
Ultimately, I'm still confused. Maybe, someone has a fresh explanation for this phenomenon.

One idea is that the "o" characters (or SOME of the "o" characters, possibly depending on position) are nulls. Considering the large number of "o" glyphs and their frequent position at the beginnings of vords, it should be strongly considered, but... there may be other explanations.

Single characters are used in many ways in natural languages...

• to denote plurals,
  
• to indicate masculine or feminine,
  
• to create emphasis,
  
• to represent aspiration,
  
• to take the place of accents (as the "e" is sometimes used to represent a missing stroke in a letter or diacritical mark, as in oe for ø, or ue for ü),
  
• to indicate a definite article in the same way we use "the _____" in English, or
  
• to indicate a capital letter or a name.
  

As part of this kind of investigation, one should check how often these words appear at the beginnings of paragraphs. If spaces are "not always real" there's the possibility of the 4 functioning by itself (as in "et") or, alternately, as belonging to the preceding word.


1. As far as it functioning by itself (if the lack of space after 4 or 4o is artificial), there is a precedent for this in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon languages (and, to some extend in Middle English). The & symbol (which often is written to resemble a Z or 7 with a crossbar) can sometimes be by itself and is sometimes attached to the next word. In Latin, it serves two purposes: it can mean "et" as in & (and) but it can also mean "et" as in the two letters being expressed as an abbreviation at the beginning of a word that starts with "et".

It doesn't occur frequently enough in the VMS for "&" to be the most likely explanation. So what might be a better line of thought?


2. Some languages will have a letter or syllable at the beginning or end of the word to denote a grammatical unit such as a noun or to give emphasis or specificity (as we use "the"). Consider that the distinction between upper- and lowercase letters was not made in the same way in ancient languages as it is now. We denote capitals with a taller and often more elaborate shape, but old languages sometimes used other methods.

In Scandinavian, a suffix is added to the end of a noun to indicate specificity. In some Mediterranean languages, a prefix is added. In some Asian languages, a radical is added before the main character, or two characters are combined.

(16-09-2016, 11:00 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP, Thomas, thank you for your work on the text analysis, for bringing up the issues of spaces, null words, word structure in the VMs etc. I've found many important points for myself, moreover, I want to do my bit, too. 
I've made a comparative table of word combinations (pairs) with the two VMs words: ol and qol. 


This short table shows only the matched combinations, but there are many other matched and not matched ones in the VMs. Anyway, I didn't expect 100% matching between them. Is that enough to conclude that ol and qol are the same words and q-glyph is a null character? Honestly, it seemed to me very promising idea in spite of that this table can't be a master card.  It could be successful for my theory, as well (I won't go into details here).
 I want to pay your attention to the word combinations from the group of "okedy" and "otedy" words. The difference is in e, ee, eee, ch, and, of course, in the "q"-presence. There are all the combinations (if I didn't miss some):
1) 
okedy okedy
okedy okeedy 
okeedy okchdy
okedy qokeedy
okeedy qokedy
qokeedy okeedy
qokeedy okedy
qokedy qokedy
qokedy qokeedy
qokeedy qokedy
qokeedy qokeedy
qokedy qokchdy
qokeedy qokchdy
qokchdy qokedy
qokchdy qokchdy
2)
otedy okedy
otedy okeedy
oteedy okedy
otedy qokchdy
oteedy qokeedy
qotedy okeedy
qoteedy okeedy
qotedy okchdy
qoteedy qokeedy
qotchdy qokchdy

Personally I find the variety of these incredibly similar word pairs strange. I'm at a loss and can't decide whether they are only two real word combinations or all these in their distinctions. I think, it could be a stronger argument in favour of the supposition about null "q"-character. On the other hand, in this case, if we mentally take away all the q-characters we get You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. 
The excessive richness with these words in the "balneo-" and "recies-" sections is too strange, even for incantations.
Ultimately, I'm still confused. Maybe, someone has a fresh explanation for this phenomenon.

This is wonderful work, Searcher! I think you have made a wonderful argument for a null character, possibly <q>!

At one time I also wondered if there is a null character (or null characters) in the text. I didn't focus on <q> but I wondered if <o> and <e> were the nulls, because they are often interchangeable, and there are versions of the same strings with different numbers of <e>'s and <o>'s (and you have noticed this also). Here are examples from my notes, if this helps:

qo-ko--dyqoted-y
qo-ke--dyqoted-y
qo-kee-dyqoted-y

qo-te--dyqoted-y
qo-tee-dyqoted-y

op-she-dyqoted-y
op-che-dyqoted-y
op-ch--dyqoted-y

she-dyqoted-y
sh--dyqoted-y

aiin-che-dyqoted-y-
aiin-ch--dyqoted-y-

However, my observation does not explain why <qol> words can also have <ol> counterparts.
I also don't know "whether they are only two real word combinations or all these in their distinctions," but my guess is that some characters are repeated to disguise the text, in the same way that we have <ain, aiin, aiiin>.

Nick Pelling posted this example of two strings that repeat on page 84r (this is the longest repeating text in the VMS), and one way that they differ is the number of <e> characters:

<f84r.P.3> shedy qokedy qokeedy qokedy  chedy okain chey
<f84r.P.10> shedy qokedy qokeedy qokeedy chedy raiin chey
(You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

So I agree with you - something looks like it may be a null