| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 1305 online users.
» 3 Member(s) | 1299 Guest(s)
Baidu, Bing, Google, Garlonga, obelus
|
|
|
| Statistical regularity of European languages and Voynich Manuscript analysis |
|
Posted by: Anton - 19-04-2017, 10:03 PM - Forum: News
- Replies (15)
|
 |
This is a recent (2016) article in the "pre-print" status, available here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The text is in Russian.
Abstract (original orthography & grammar are preserved):
Quote:The statistical properties of letters frequencies in European literature texts are investigated. The determination of logarithmic dependence of letters sequence for one-language and two-language texts are examined. The pare of languages is suggested for Voynich Manuscript. The internal structure of Manuscript is considered. The spectral portraits of two-letters distribution are constructed.
Authored by nine (!) authors, some of them from the Keldysh Applied Maths Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, this seems to be yet another example of not so convincing intrusion of academics into the field of Voynich. After I read, in the Introduction, that the VMS is dated to XVI century, I lost half of my wish to read further; after I read, two paragraphs later, that they contrapose "EVA" and "Takahashi" transcriptions, I lost the other half.
The non-Russian sources cited are the catalog record and materials analysis @ Beinecke, Pelling's book, paper by Landini and Zandbergen, Levitov's solution, and Takahashi's transcription.
Judging by conclusion, the authors claim that the VMS is written in mixed language - 60% in English or German, and 40% in Italian, Spanish or Latin, all this with vowels omitted.
One day I may read this paper in full, but sorry - not now.
|
|
|
| Improper or incorrect credits |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 18-04-2017, 07:56 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (18)
|
 |
This is not my favourite topic, and I only start a new thread because I don't want to be off-topic in another one.
Only just a few days ago I wrote in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. :
Quote:It's a real pity that this spectre of 'who said what first' is haunting so many discussions.
It is obviously to be expected that if many dozens of people are looking at the same thing, many people will come to the same conclusions completely independently.
and various related statements.
In an interesting blog post by Koen about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , he is unfortunately misled by a particularly bad example of this, when he writes in footnote [2] about who probably first noted the oak and ivy comparison with the Manfredus MS.
The source for that appears to be You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , which further refers to a comment at Stephen Bax' blog.
The trouble is that there is no information about 'who was first'. The selection of Edith Sherwood is arbitrary.
It is also the only one of the three (Edith, JKP and myself, who all noted this independently from each other) that is definitely not the right answer.
For those who care about this topic, the comments on Stephen Bax' blog ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) are quite clear, I think.
If one wants to credit someone, one has to get it right.
Not knowing something may be unsatisfactory, but this might just reflect reality.
In this situation it is not acceptable to make things up, because people will be misled in believing it, as happened in the case of Koen's blog post.
|
|
|
|
| Book review |
|
Posted by: Davidsch - 14-04-2017, 02:19 PM - Forum: News
- Replies (2)
|
 |
The New York Review of Books
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The Voynich Manuscript
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
edited by Raymond Clemens, with an introduction by Deborah Harkness
Beinecke Library/ Yale University Press, 304 pp., $50.00
|
|
|
|
| [split] Those Scribbles |
|
Posted by: Anton - 13-04-2017, 11:32 AM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (32)
|
|
Ah, these scribbles are an interesting thing. I don't support the idea of anything being encoded there, but I mean another thing. It is best seen if you rotate the pic provided by coded (stellar) by 180 degrees. You will then see that these scribbles repeat the capital letter "M" a number of times (three or four times, if I remember correctly) inscribed in the same ornate way (I mean the way that the pen goes). Given this ornate way repeating several times, I wonder if this can be a signature (or part of signature) of the scribe. This could then be a valuable clue.
|
|
|
|
| [split] color annotations? |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 11-04-2017, 02:25 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (16)
|
|
I've also noted a color annotation You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (as well as other kinds of text in the leaves that are hard to discern).
I don't know whether René mentioned it earlier (it's something I noticed independently) but if it is a color annotation, it says something about the language of the person doing the annotations or whoever was tasked with the painting.
"G" is green in quite a few languages (green, grün, grön, grønn, grøn, groen, gjelbër, grien, grænt, glas, greng, grin) but most of them are western European, more specifically the germanic languages rather than romance languages (which are usually "v"), eastern European languages are usually "z", and African and Asian languages vary, but are not usually "g".
If the label in the root is intended as "rot" (which seems probable but is not completely certain), then it confirms that the annotations are germanic.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: C9uG2MpVYAAk8A4.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9uG2MpVYAAk8A4.jpg:large)
![[Image: boerhave1.jpg]](http://ms.webpoint.nl/img/ffitalian/boerhave1.jpg)