The Voynich Ninja

(13-11-2020, 12:39 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@farmerjohn, nothing personal, but I disagree.

Quote:MarcoP, I completely disagree with that. Moreover, I believe that this sort of thinking prevents VMS from being decoded. But that is just a personal opinion, nothing more.

I would say that this sort of thinking prevents that incorrect VMS decodings can be accepted.

The discussion is often between people who know a great deal about a certain subject, and people who know less or little.

(Note that this is not just true for Voynich MS discussions).

Almost all experiments show that there is no solution to the VMS which is smooth and clean in every aspect, so for me the main question about is what you are ready to sacrifice to solve it. And different solutions, sorry "solutions", should be really classified in that way.
So I'm absolutely ok with different sorts of thinking and when VMS is finally decoded it will be nice to explore whose approach worked better and why.

(13-11-2020, 12:39 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A proposed translation in Latin, Hebrew, Nahuatl or any other language can only be judged properly by people who are intimately familiar with these languages.

This is absolutely true.

(13-11-2020, 12:39 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not by someone relying on Google Translate.

If you mean me, I don't use GT for Latin. You can clearly see it in my instruments available on Android or iPhone.

(13-11-2020, 09:23 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A general question is how would you evaluate a solution based on constructed language? What would be the technique there?

In my eyes, this scenario is not too different from evaluating a "natural language" solution. Bowern and Lindemann ("The Linguistics of the Voynich Manuscript", 2020) point out that historically documented constructed languages were based on the syntax of natural languages:

Bowern and Lindemann Wrote:To our knowledge, the most extensive pre-modern conlang is the Turkish, Persian and Arabic-based language Balaibalan (Haeberl, 2015; Koc, 2005). Balaibalan was a Sufi esoteric language, represented in 3 manuscripts dating from roughly 1580 but likely a collective effort at composition over many years. There are two other well attested ancient conlangs, Latin and German-based Lingua Ignota, created by Hildegard von Bingen (Higley, 2007) in the 12th Century, and Enochian, an “angelic” English like language invented in the 16th Century by Edward Kelly and John Dee (Laycock, 2001). All three conlangs are heavily based on natural languages and consist of embedding made-up roots in the morphology and syntax of natural languages. Thus if Voynichese is a conlang, we might expect it to pattern morphosyntactically with other natural languages, but be anomalous at the root level.

So, I would check grammatical consistency according to the rules described by the solver. Of course, a solution which is not based on a grammar for the supposedly deciphered constructed language can be readily discarded. If Cheshire changed his strategy and claimed that Voynichese is not Proto-Italic but a constructed language from Ischia or something, his solution could still be dismissed for its lack of any hint of grammatical consistency (e.g. daiin=naus/food is arbitrarily translated as subject, object or genitive).

Though historically ulikely, Voynichese could also be "an artificial or universal language of the a priori type", as Friedman concluded. Also in this case, in order to be intelligible, the language must have a grammar: anyone claiming to have deciphered it must describe how the grammar works.

MarcoP, I agree that the grammar must be present in any case, but the devil is in this detail:

(14-11-2020, 08:40 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, I would check grammatical consistency according to the rules described by the solver.

The diversity of grammar complexity may be huge (roughly English has 5 endings per verb, Latin has 100). Native speaker has ability to validate the text by quickly scanning it, or compare to existing materials, but for arbitrary artificial language "checking" may require a lot of prework, including building dictionary or even creating some software, everything from scratch.

And there is one important point (at least for me): one should always keep in mind that there may be errors (of any kinds). If checking is too strict or too mechanical a great idea may be easily thrown away.

(27-10-2020, 04:17 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.New version of the work

FarmerJohn!
I reread the whole thread, opened the 13 (!) files and my first question is why not publish on a blog like everyone else?
My second question is why with your key you can't read all the text, but only some extracts?
I also wanted to ask a question about shedy = partellus, but I saw that it was already asked and I didn't understand your answer, why does your reading produce non-existent words?
Your reading of the label on page 84r "okar ydairol ychckhy dshedy", was of particular interest to me, because I also made a suggestion for its reading. I found two variants in your documents: "boetharius iconellorum concreatorus leporatilis", translated as "Assistant of scribe created witty images" and "Edare scholiorum strıdorus lıbertellus", translated as "Created note free of hissing sounds".
What is the reason for this change of interpretation?

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

(14-11-2020, 07:36 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I reread the whole thread, opened the 13 (!) files and my first question is why not publish on a blog like everyone else?

Ruby Novacna, you are a real hero. I don't recommend reading previous versions, except maybe the first one which contains some stats. I tried to have blog, but writing blogs should be regular and I'm not able to keep the rate.

(14-11-2020, 07:36 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My second question is why with your key you can't read all the text, but only some extracts?

The nature of my key (almost without vowels) implies certain ambiguity and extreme sensitivity (that is tiny changes in key mean big changes in translations). So trying to decode one given piece of text to infinity is counterproductive - for example it may contain proper nouns which are not present in dictionary and so you are stuck. In the beginning it is much more efficient to find chunks which are easier to decode and then try to decode chunks with similar words.

(14-11-2020, 07:36 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also wanted to ask a question about shedy = partellus, but I saw that it was already asked and I didn't understand your answer, why does your reading produce non-existent words?

I don't remember my answer, and your question is too general so here is my current understanding:
1. Non-existent where? It's absolutely legal Latin word with diminutive suffix.
2. This non-existency is tricky thing. "Partellus" doesn't appear anywhere, ok. Voynich script also doesn't appear anywhere else is it non-existent? There is no evidence that only the script in the VMS is unique. Text, language, images may be unique too. Moreover if one does one thing weirdly, the probability that he does another thing weirdly increases.
3. In the beginning I thought VMS is normal Latin text, only with excessive use of diminutive suffixes (which is common for Medieval Latin or for colloquial language; by the way, I saw you can read Russian -  so then Russians use diminutives not only for nouns and adjectives, but also for adverbs ). Today I think that all types of suffixes are used and it's the core of my idea.
4. As of EVA-shedy, partellus. My conjecture is roughly the following (I ignorant in Latin so everything below are just my fantasies, as was witty noted by one user). In language A the author used EVA-shey for partus (as one of options). This can be considered both as noun ("part") and as passive perfect infinitive (partus esse with esse You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Also EVA-sheody is partulus. In B language the author (or another author) preferred diminutive suffix ell to ul so the diminutive form of noun had transformed to EVA-shedy, partellus. At the same time the author searched for new stylistic devices (more hell!!111) and noted that passive infinitive partus  technically is adjective (a sort of) so is subject to diminution and decided to add ell also there. This resulted in "diminutive verbs". This procedure explains why there are so many EVA-edy in language B.
For example, I currently read the beginning of last paragraph of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (shey dar shey) as partus hilaria partus.

(14-11-2020, 07:36 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your reading of the label on page 84r "okar ydairol ychckhy dshedy", was of particular interest to me, because I also made a suggestion for its reading. I found two variants in your documents: "boetharius iconellorum concreatorus leporatilis", translated as "Assistant of scribe created witty images" and "Edare scholiorum strıdorus lıbertellus", translated as "Created note free of hissing sounds".
What is the reason for this change of interpretation?

The reason is simple: the key is ambiguous and very sensitive. One of the ways to fight with that is to find word meanings which fit all occurences.
Another approach is very well described in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. post by Emma May Smith. Examples: usually prefix con is used before consonants, but co before vowels - this reduces possibilities for the next letter; letter c sounds differently before hard and soft vowels - also some hint there.

(14-11-2020, 10:20 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The reason is simple: the key is ambiguous and very sensitive.

FarmerJohn !
If you recognize that your key is ambiguous, just change it; after all it was you who determined it.

I couldn't find a dictionary that would translate the word partus as part. I use Gaffiot or Olivetti (also available in English) which gives the list of existing Latin words, which is very advantageous for a beginner like me.

(15-11-2020, 08:09 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you recognize that your key is ambiguous, just change it; after all it was you who determined it.

It doesn't work that way. The key may be changed only if it's incorrect, not if it's ambiguous.

(15-11-2020, 08:09 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I couldn't find a dictionary that would translate the word partus as part. I use Gaffiot or Olivetti (also available in English) which gives the list of existing Latin words, which is very advantageous for a beginner like me.

I'm very frivolous with noun endings, especially with 3rd declension nouns

(15-11-2020, 12:03 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm very frivolous with noun endings, especially with 3rd declension nouns

Yeah... but when you're dealing with an inflected language like Latin, those endings are the whole ballgame.

(16-11-2020, 01:15 AM)Stephen Carlson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yeah... but when you're dealing with an inflected language like Latin, those endings are the whole ballgame.

If I understand correctly there are several "dialects" of Latin with intermediate variants.

Here is citation from Medieval Latin by Harrington:

3.1 Changes in Gender
3.1.1 MASCULINE AND FEMININE
In general masculine and feminine remained the same, with a few important exceptions:
feminines of the second declension became masculine; feminines of the
fourth declension were treated in various ways; in Gallia, abstract nouns ending
in -or became feminine: color, honor, dolor, timor (Bonnet 503-4).
3.1.2 MASCULINE AND NEUTER
Even during the Classical period, certain neuter nouns became masculine: balteum,
caseum, cornu, etc. In popular and Late Latin this tendency is pronounced
(e.g., Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.4, guttur and dorsus, masc.; in Petronius 75.10
the masc. candelabrus is found for candelabrum; see Grandgent 145).
Almost all neuter nouns became masculine:
hunc verbum (Greg. T., H.P. 1, Pref.); hunc nefas (ibid. 2.3), etc. (see
Bonnet 3 86).
Mare, however, perhaps under the influence of terra, in general became feminine
(Grandgent 146; but cf. Cat. el mar and la mar).
3.1.3 FEMININE AND NEUTER
Neuter plurals in -a came to be considered as feminine singulars (Grandgent
146-47; Norberg 58ff.):
In Gregory of Tours, pro tantae pietatis gaudia, "for joy at such piety"
(De virtutibus Martini 3 . 1 9), according to Bonnet 351, gaudia is feminine
singular, the ancestor of It. gioia, Fr. joie.
In other cases the difference between them is plainly blurred:
res mira . . . quod ( Chron. Sal. 98.3 1 ) .
Occasionally a neuter plural accusative did duty for a feminine ablative singular:
in disponsalia Mariae interfuimus, we were present at Mary's betrothal
(Gospel of Nicodemus 2.4).

Also if I'm not mistaken JKP once mentioned a manuscript written in nominative/infinitive.

What you're describing here is the tendency for medieval Latin to pick up influences from the writers native language. So French speakers put a French twist on it, germanic speakers another. Hence the change in gender, etc.