The predictability of glyph placement within label vords is in concordance with that of vords in the main corpus
Explanation
Some vords appear as "labels", single or double vords apparently identifying images within the manuscript. These labels have the same grammar as those vords in the main body of the corpus.
The text of the manuscript is divided up into clearly defined word-like glyph groups (dubbed vords on this forum). These glyph groups have a non-trivial internal structure which is manifest in the severe restrictions imposed upon the positioning of glyphs within the word groups.
In other words, Voynichese has a very strict phototactic structure – morphemes appear in predefined places within vords, and only there.
A morpheme is the smallest grammatical unit in a language.
Morphemes in the corpus are easily identifiable. Voynichese glyph combinations are very positional aware within vords – glyph groups are non-trivial in their internal positioning. We can identify, and have identified, a long list of suffixes and prefixes within Voynichese. We know that certain glyphs only appear as suffixes; we know that certain glyphs only appear as prefixes; and we know that other glyphs are free form. We have also identified (via the CLS theorem) that glyphs appear in a certain pattern.
We assume these are bound morphemes because they obey certain rules of positioning. (We can make no assumptions about words that do not include such bound morphemes as we are unable to identify a meaning for such unbound morphemes, but such vords are relatively few in nature).
And analysis of the labels (see links below) show that the corpus of labels has a notable level of concordance with the morpheme placement of vords in the main corpus.
Further reading
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. MarcoP on the Voynich.Ninja.
Quote:Summary: Marco found that almost 70% of all labels matched words in the main corpus. The rest were unique.
VMS language DNA variations. Davidsch
Quote:My research shows visually that the labels, as defined,
follow the same rules for the letters in the remainder of the text that are not labels, with some exceptions:
'a' occurs proportionally more in the "label text"
the 'q' (only posA) occurs much lesser in the "label text"
the 'h' occurs much lesser in the "label text"
the 't' on posB is higher in the "label text"
You can check by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "CAB NST" & "CAB labels only".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Prof. Stolfi
Stolfi notes [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.] when attempting to create a "grammar" for Voynichese that (italics mine):
Quote:It should be noted that that normal words [in his attempt to create a grammar] account for over 88% of all label tokens, and over 96.5% of all the tokens (word instances) in the text. The exceptions (less than 4 every 100 text words) can be ascribed to several causes, including physical "noise" and transcription errors. (Different people transcribing the same page often disagree on their reading, with roughly that same frequency.). Indeed, most "abnormal" words are still quite similar to normal words, as discussed in a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
[..]
The words that do not fit into our paradigm [..] These words comprise 1295 tokens (3.7%) in the main text, and 127 tokens (12.4%) in the labels. The vast majority are rare words that occur only once in the whole manuscript.
TheYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Brian Cham and David Jackson describes how Voynich glyphs can be divided into three categories that interact with one another in a pre-defined manner.
Notes
Statement changed from "The morpheme construction of labels is in concordance with that of the main corpus"
Since the Poll thread has closed, I've started the thread to reply to the last comment made by Anton that
Quote:Anton:
After ...seven?.... years, nobody has yet been able to give me a concise professional definition of vellum
I thought I might pass on the British Library's concise definitions - accepting that customs differ in different countries and in different languages. In fact, our habit is to refer more generally to 'membrane' unless specifically comparing that in one manuscript to another to aid provenancing - e.g. the French pocket bibles' vellum with that in the Vms.
Brit. Lib:
Quote:PARCHMENT:
A writing support material that derives its name from Pergamon (Bergama in modern Turkey), an early production centre. The term is often used generically to denote animal skin prepared to receive writing, although it is more correctly applied only to sheep and goat skin..
Quote:VELLUM: the term vellum reserved for calfskin.
and UTERINE VELLUM:
Uterine vellum, the skin of stillborn or very young calves, is characterized by its small size and particularly fine, white appearance; however, it was rarely used.
Here again, customs differ. Our practice is to never write "calfskin" in that way; it is reserved - in our practice - for describing leather - e.g. a bag, a pair of shoes or book-binding is "calfskin" but membrane used for a manuscript''s bifolia is "vellum" or "calf-skin".
I notice that Helmut suggests that in his practice the term for 'vellum' has a much more restricted application than is found elsewhere - the British Library's descriptions being sufficient example.
I've recently repurposed my genetic algorithm code to use EVA rather than Voyn_101. The GA seems to do better with EVA, and I'd like to report an interesting result using Latin as a base language for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (a folio I picked at random).
The way this works is that the GA reads in the EVA transcription for the given folio(s), line by line and word by word, and as it does so it creates frequency tables of all the ngrams it finds. Right now it uses ngrams up to 3 glyphs long.
It then reads in a very large Latin word list, to use as a validation dictionary.
It then prepares a set of Latin letters, nulls and scribal abbreviations, currently numbering around 60 items in total.
Then it randomly pairs each EVA ngram with one of the Latin letters, nulls or abbreviations, and using that pairing (called a chromosome in the jargon), applies it to all lines and words in the EVA, so as to produce new words in plaintext. Each plaintext word is checked for validity in the Latin dictionary, and scored. If the word is valid, it gets a high score. If the word is long, it gets a higher score. All the word scores are summed. If a consecutive sequence of valid Latin words appear, that causes the overall score of the chromosome to increase according to the length of the sequence. The idea here is to reward chromosomes that produce sequences of valid, long Latin words.
This random process continues over many pairings/chromosome and many generations, using selection between each generation to refine the pairings (I'll spare you the details!).
Here are details for one of the better results (with a score of over 22000):
A) The list of letters, nulls and abbreviations used is as follows:
B) The best chromosome of VM glyph pairing to the Latin ngrams in A), includes the following
[font=voynich] a = r[/font] [font=voynich] 8 = t[/font] [font=voynich] c = re[/font] [font=voynich] h = ur[/font] [font=voynich] o = er[/font] [font=voynich] y = tum[/font] [font=voynich] s = u[/font] [font=voynich] k = [font=Arial]est[/font][/font] [font=voynich] 9 = um[/font] [font=voynich] 8a = c[/font] [font=voynich] co = m[/font] [font=voynich] ii = <null>[/font] [font=voynich] 4o = in[/font]
(The remaining pairs are omitted for brevity.)
I found the 9 = um equivalence that the GA discovered to be striking (Brumbaugh claimed this equivalence in his solution), but I suppose it's sort of obvious.
B) The best pairing translates the following valid Latin words on f3r:
ycheor chor dam qotcham cham umterim ratum cum inque cercis
ochor qocheor chol daiin cthy erratum interim ratis da carum
schey chor chal cham cham cho uterum ratum certis cercis cercis ra
qokol chololy s cham cthol ius ratisusum u cercis carus
ychtaiin chor cthom otal dam umturestcarum ratum caro prtis cum
otchol qodaiin chom shom damo pratis inda racis iscis cumer
ysheor chor chol oky damo umsim ratum ratis coum cumer
I expect the Latin above makes no sense at all, but the "look and feel" of the word lengths and the vocabulary size I find encouraging.
I'd welcome suggestions of Latin abbreviations, prefixes and suffixes that I could include in (or remove from) the list in A) above (which I gleaned mostly from d'Imperio's summary of Cappelli).
Monas Hieroglyphica You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. MS-408 Key
Well this may come as a shocker to all of you, for I have found the key to read proper sentences in the Voynich Manuscript. Theorem I of John Dee’s book commences with the word, “Per”, and I decoded 11 word tokens of the Voynich in a row for folio 1r using my cipher from his book. Take a look! The word, “At” breaks down to the next theorem in the following paragraph at the next voynich sentence.
With further research into You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I found a 15 digit sequence which runs counter clockwise. This is not an anomaly and it was purposefully done by the Author. The numbers are fifteen digits of Pi (i.e. 3.14159265358979). The inner circle contains the first six digits of Pi while the outer contains the next nine digits of Pi which follow in sequence.
And with corrections from which JKP noticed this was the outcome of the first six number of Pi
I know that we have a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on gallows characters but I have a theory about benched gallows (cKh, cTh, cPh, cFh) that has statistical support.
In my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I showed that <qo> is followed by <k> or <t> 80% of the time in the VMS corpus (4 out of 5 times). It is followed by <l> only 5% of the time, <e> 2% of the time, and <ch> less than 1% of the time. So, there is a clear pattern: <qo> comes in front of a gallows character.
There are a very small number of times where <qo> comes before a benched gallows like [cKh] or [cTh]. So there are three options for interpretation:
1) The benched gallows can be deconstructed as <qokch> or <qotch>, which makes statistical sense (qo before gallows is normal).
2) The benched gallows can be deconstructed as <qochk, qocht> or <qoeke, qoete>, but all of these combinations together only appear 9 times in the VMS.
3) The benched gallows are independent sounds, but they rarely follow <qo> (about 1.7% of the time, or less than 1-in-50 times, that <qo> is used).
EDIT: Anton proposed a fourth system You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (which may or may not work in conjunction with #1 or #2)
The first option is the most statistically likely, and in addition, there are plenty of times where a benched gallows and its [gallows+ch] equivalent are interchangeable, which also lends support to option 1:
So, I would conclude that the benched gallows are really [gallows followed by ch], but I could be wrong and I'm open to counter-arguments
[Note: this thread is a forum-friendly summary of two blog posts on the subject of proportions in depictions of the human form. For a very brief intro (including a measurement of Nick Pelling's head-to-body ratio), see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. For a more detailed account of the analysis described in this thread, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..]
Last week, I decided to perform some measurements of nymph proportions. I had two questions in mind:
1) Are the nymphs drawn in an unusual style, or just badly drawn?
2) Can we understand the purpose of the illustrations better by looking at nymph proportions?
The second question is one I cannot yet answer, though I hope some useful ideas may emerge in this thread.
The first question then, was prompted by the recurring discussion about whether or not the person who drew these figures was technically skilled. Several people have a nuanced view on this matter, and Diane regularly brings up the objection that the draughtsman seems to have payed a lot of attention to certain proportions of the nymphs, which would be an indicator of a specific style rather than an outright lack of skill or training.
I thought: proportions can be measured, so let's do that. I only measured the vertical proportions for now, so not the width of the shoulders or length of the arms for example.
Historically, a number of systems were used to get body proportions right or at least keep them consistent. We do not know which, if any, system was used in the VM illustrations, so I opted for the height of the head as a point of reference, since this is very well understood.
The height of the head is measured from the top of the skull to the chin. This negates the effects of hats or "high hair".
It's all about proportions, not absolute measurements. Absolute numbers are irrelevant, since those can be affected by the zoom of the picture or just the scale of the drawing. Additionally, proportions allow us to compare a wide range of media and sources.
I measured how many times a figure's head went into its whole length. Additionally, I selected the distance from top to navel and top to the knee of the straight leg as two other proportions. For example, "nymph x top to navel is four times her head."
I measured most nymphs that were visible in full body, i.e. without the legs hidden. In a few cases, only the feet were hidden, which allowed me to still make confident measurements.
Nymphs in all sections were measured to see whether there was any difference between sections.
Clear outliers are discussed separately.
Just to get an idea: the average person is 7,5 heads tall. "Ideal" proportions are often preferred in art, with figures of eight heads tall. On my first blog post I measured a runway model for fun, and with high heels she looked as if she was a kind-of-ridiculous 8.7 heads tall.
I provided this image as a comparison for how it could be. In BNF LAT 12957 the illustrations betray little attention for proportions and a general lack of spatial insight. The female figure is a whopping 11.5 heads, while the male's head only fits 6.1 times in his total size.
My findings about the Voynich nymphs are the following:
The proportions of the nymphs were consistent across sections. Additionally, individual nymphs don't deviate more than half a head from the median, which is peanuts compared to the above example.
The median values across 47 measured nymphs are:
Code:
Top of skull to navel: 2.3 heads
Top of skull to knee of straight leg: 3.4 heads
Total size: 4.3 heads
There are slight variations in individual nymphs, but those are surprisingly small. For comparative studies, the most valuable number is that a Voynich nymph is on average a bit more than four heads tall. Compared to even a "compact" person of seven heads tall, these proportions are extremely stunted.
Using the chin, navel and knee, a nymph can be roughly divided in four parts:
This seems to point towards a more or less conscious "construction" of the bodies. That is not to say that these points were actually used. There are other possible markers like the knee of the bent leg, the eyes, the nipples, the groin... Many of those are still used as reference points in drawing today.
SPECIALS
Both human figures in the marginalia have close to average proportions.
The archer and the female twin are close to average as well. Virgo is a bit tall at 4.8 heads, though still within half a head from the median. Additionally, the robe might make the body taller than intended.
Now the strangest part. Apart from the archer, who had standard proportions, I measured six men in the manuscript. These were the ones who were unambiguously male and measurable. All of them are outliers.
The young man on top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is 5.4 heads tall, which is a full head more than the median. He is the least "compact" figure I measured. It is interesting that the pen lines appear to betray some uncertainty or correcting around his rump.
The five remaining men were all 3.7 heads tall. They were the most compact figures I measured, with 0.6 heads under the median. The fact that these were all men and all similarly proportioned in a different way than the nymphs seems relevant. Three of these were found on the Gemini page.
I don't know what any of this means, though I do believe now that more effort went into these drawings than one would think at first sight. Any thoughts?
Posted by: R. Sale - 01-10-2016, 08:25 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- No Replies
Considering the VMs, the establishment of validity, discovering the intended and meaningful interpretations of the illustrations, has presented a significant challenge. Even where visual similarity is strong, it still stands alone. And there are clearly places in the VMs where visual isimilarity is less than robust. And perhaps some images are intentionally ambiguous.
The solution to this difficulty is found in the laws of Deuteronomy. The establishment of validity in those laws requires the testimony of two or more witnesses. Visual similarity may exist, but it is not conclusive on its own - not in a medieval fantasy-land like the VMs.
A second witness is needed and it is found, not in the images themselves, but in their traditional placement within an illustration and their location relative to each other. Objective, positional fact is the second witness to the validity of interpretation.
And in the VMs Zodiac, the need for two witnesses is converted into the pairing paradigm. Pairs in the medallions of the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac establish the paradigm. Heraldry and history continue the paradigm. And they continue to fulfill the requirement of Deuteronomy for two or more witnesses. The Vms Zodiac pages are constructed to accommodate these witnesses, but, given the nature of the VMs, some subtleties have been employed to diminish the strength of visual similarities. However, the second witness still stands firm. Positional facts based on tradition provide multiple confirmations, even though visual similarities appear a bit cloudy, particularly when stuffed into an optical illusion, etc. The use of an optical illusion is evidence of intentional ambiguity. Intentional obfuscation means that identification through visual similarity will probably not work. This means establishment of validity relies on the existence of a second witness and the creation of certain VMs illustrations that were built on the teachings of Deuteronomy.