Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 65 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 63 Guest(s) Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
No text, but a visual cod...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Antonio García Jiménez
1 hour ago
» Replies: 1,291
» Views: 244,550
|
Documents in Archives
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: merrimacga
1 hour ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 102
|
[sh] and Paragraph First ...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: pfeaster
1 hour ago
» Replies: 8
» Views: 381
|
Ensoulment
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: pjburkshire
6 hours ago
» Replies: 20
» Views: 490
|
Trivia!
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Scarecrow
11 hours ago
» Replies: 28
» Views: 4,367
|
f57v
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: ReneZ
Yesterday, 12:53 AM
» Replies: 55
» Views: 17,191
|
Pisces: March or February...
Forum: Astrology
Last Post: R. Sale
Yesterday, 12:39 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 61
|
The truncation effect
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Pepper
27-03-2024, 04:48 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 158
|
New Post: "I Do Listen to...
Forum: News
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
27-03-2024, 03:37 PM
» Replies: 19
» Views: 1,198
|
Yale University Free Disc...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Pepper
27-03-2024, 09:35 AM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 619
|
|
|
[sh] and Paragraph First Line |
Posted by: Emma May Smith - 20-03-2024, 12:18 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (8)
|
|
Hello, I have a very quick question:
Is it already known that words containing [sh], and specifically those beginning [sh], are more common in the first line of a paragraph?
The presence of [f] and [p] has been known for a while in this location, but am uncertain if [sh] had been mentioned before. Can anybody recall?
(Also, seemingly, words ending [chdy], but I'm less certain on this.)
|
|
|
The Rosettes Page - March 2024 |
Posted by: pjburkshire - 19-03-2024, 05:48 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (44)
|
|
What do you think the Rosettes page (the large fold-out with nine circles at the end of Quire 14) represents?
- I think the Rosettes page represents Heavenly Jerusalem.
- I think the Rosettes page represents a general form of Heaven.
- I think the Rosettes page represents a real place on Earth.
- I have a different idea about the meaning of the Rosettes page.
- I don't know what the Rosettes page represents.
This message board is supposed to be about people sharing ideas. I want to encourage people to share their ideas. I want to know what people believe about the illustrations in the Voynich Manuscript and I want to know why they believe what they believe.
|
|
|
Arabic as precursor language |
Posted by: dfs346 - 16-03-2024, 10:38 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- No Replies
|
|
Further to my recent post in another thread, on Arabic as a possible precursor language of the Voynich manuscript, I tested a range of alternative transliterations of the Voynich text, all based on Glen Claston's v101 but differing from v101 in one or more respects. I numbered these transliterations v101④ through v202. (The ④ signifies that in all the transliterations, I treated the v101 glyph pair {4o} as a single glyph, to which I assigned the Unicode symbol ④.)
For comparison of the Voynich text with the Arabic language, I used Arabic letter frequencies derived from the works of Ibn Kathir (1300-1373)
In order to test my Voynich transliterations, I started by calculating the statistical correlations between the glyph frequencies and the Arabic letter frequencies. However, with two short descending sequences such as ibn Kathir's Arabic alphabet (which has 43 letters), and the 43 most frequent glyphs in the v101 transliteration (which account for 98.6 percent of the text), it is relatively easy to obtain correlations well in excess of 90 percent. Substantial differences between transliterations (for example combining the {2} group of glyphs) result in quite small changes in the frequency correlations.
I therefore adopted an alternative metric, namely the average frequency difference. Mathematically, this is the average of the absolute differences between the frequency of a precursor letter and the frequency of the equally ranked Voynich glyph. My idea was that the lowest average frequency difference should represent the best fit between a transliteration and a presumed precursor language
On this metric, I found that the transliteration which I had numbered v171 was the best fit for ibn Kathir's Arabic alphabet. Apart from the treatment of {4o}, the v171 transliteration has the following differences from v101:
Below is a juxtaposition of the frequencies of the top 43 glyphs in the v171 transliteration, and the 43 Arabic letter frequencies. The average frequency difference between v171 and Ibn Kathir's Arabic is 0.64 percent.
The next step is to explore the potential of these juxtapositions as correspondences or mappings. For example, the Voynich {o} could map to and from the Arabic ا (alef). Thereby, we could map some of the most common Voynich "words", such as {8am}, {oe} and {1oe}, to text strings in Arabic. We could then search appropriate corpora of the Arabic language, for example ibn Kathir's The Beginning and the End, to determine whether these strings are real words.
Since Arabic uses an abjad script, in which the short vowels are not written, chances are that most of the Voynich "words" up to three glyphs will map to real words in Arabic. However, as with Persian, the mapping may well break down with "words" of four glyphs or longer. Even if we are able construct real words of four letters or more, when arranged in sequence they may or may not make sense. I will do some tests. More later.
|
|
|
Syllabic Hypothesis |
Posted by: pfeaster - 16-03-2024, 04:28 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (7)
|
|
I've been continuing to play around with the idea that some of the strange properties of Voynichese could be explained in terms of the workings of a syllabic encoding scheme. I decided to try writing up my latest version of this "syllabic hypothesis," not proposing any specific solution (I don't have one), but just outlining the general kind of mechanism I can imagine having been in play. So here goes, with no claim that it's anything more than the usual stab in the dark:
A “vord” ordinarily corresponds to a syllable, and breaks between “vords” correspond to boundaries between syllables. These breaks can help the reader parse the text into pronounceable chunks, but otherwise they’re redundant and expendable. We can draw an analogy with numbers represented with Arabic numerals, insofar as “21734” and “21,734” (or “21.734”) mean the same thing.
Breaks are most practically useful in running “paragraphic” text, where many syllables appear consecutively, for the same reason that punctuation is more useful in longer Arabic numerals: “1934” or “21734” are easy to read without punctuation, but “3478923478923” isn’t. On the other hand, it’s less crucial to introduce breaks into shorter “labels,” which tend therefore to have their syllables less carefully separated and to yield longer “vords” on average.
A “vord” can represent a syllable as V, CV, VC, or CVC, where C can be a consonant cluster and V can be a diphthong. Most multisyllabic plaintext words can accordingly be divided into syllables in multiple ways. Moreover, a single syllabic “vord” can span two plaintext words, or even three (for example, if just a plan were encoded as [jus] [tap] [lan]). To avoid confusion, breaks between plaintext words can be marked explicitly within a syllabic “vord,” for example as [t·a·p], but this practice is optional and inconsistent, just as it was in other writings of the fifteenth century. The mechanism for encoding [·] could also overlap with a mechanism for showing emphasis, comparable to the use of majuscules.
A single plaintext word is never allowed to extend across a line break, which has implications for the forms of syllabic "vords" we'll find at the beginnings and ends of lines.
Some plaintext words end in such a way that their final syllables will almost always end up shared in a single "vord" with the beginning of the following word in running text. It’s only when one of these words appears at the end of a line that we’ll encounter a "vord" that represents this type of word-ending syllable in isolation.
Similarly, some plaintext words begin in such a way that their opening syllables will almost always end up shared in a single "vord" with the end of the preceding word in running text. It’s only when one of these words appears at the beginning of a line that we’ll encounter a "vord" that represents this type of word-opening syllable in isolation.
Consonant clusters that occur only at the intersections between words in running text will never be found at the beginnings of lines. Take for example a mechanism for encoding double letters, as in est tua = [es] [t·tu] [a]. Syllables of the form [t·tu] can appear within lines but never line-initially.
A “vord” can represent a syllable of the form V, CV, VC, or CVC, but the mapping of characters to phonemes within it isn’t necessarily straightforward. An empty slot might be marked, e.g., [0V0], [CV0], [0VC], to help with parsing. Different glyphs might be used to encode the same consonant initially as CV and terminally as VC. There might be some consonants or consonant clusters that can only be encoded as CV or VC – for instance, maybe [x] can only be encoded as such at the end of a syllable. And encoding might be verbose in any number of unintuitive ways, leading a "vord" that represents a single syllable to look superficially multisyllabic.
When a plaintext word is broken into syllables for encoding, there may be a loose tendency for successive syllables to display the same structure, e.g., e civitatis = [e] [ci] [vi] [ta] [tis], consistently favoring CV, or [e·c] [iv] [it] [at] [is], consistently favoring VC. Combined with the marking of empty slots, this would result in a strong tendency towards repetition of similar-looking forms, e.g., [0e0] [ci0] [vi0] [ta0] [tis] or [0e·c] [0iv] [0it] [0at] [0is].
But in some cases, it's legitimately ambiguous what "counts" as a syllable. For example, is ia one syllable or two? This type of situation may have been handled inconsistently or in a deliberately ambiguous way, and could partially scramble some of the foregoing pattern.
Even if a given plaintext word is unlikely to be written twice in exactly the same way, plaintext words are made up of consistent syllables, such that if the same plaintext word recurs repeatedly in a passage, a “vord” that can be used to represent one of its syllables is likely to recur there as well—as are similar-looking “vords” that represent its combination with adjacent parts of the same word or with other adjacent plaintext words.
A writer might have favored some particular syllable structure, such as CV, when starting a line, and only switched to a different syllable structure, such as VC, when forced by an uncooperative word to do so, but then stuck with it, leading the dispreferred form to favor the latter part of lines, only slightly but consistently.
A syllabic “vord” will tend to be followed preferentially by syllabic “vords” that start in phonetically compatible ways. Thus, a syllabic “vord” ending in [m] is more likely to be followed by another syllabic “vord” beginning with [b] than by one beginning with [d] or [g] if mb occurs more often within plaintext words than md or mg. (To be clear, I'm using plaintext Latin characters to represent themselves here, and not EVA!)
Over time, a system like this would probably have been called upon to handle unanticipated situations. For example, it may at first have made no provision for encoding consonants without vowels, since that violates its basic syllabic logic. But then maybe a need arose to encode Roman numerals or unusually complex consonant clusters—or maybe the original approach to encoding consonant clusters just turned out to be too clunky. The problem could have been solved by permitting the vowel slot to be marked as empty [0] – which would have required introducing some new and distinctive glyph or glyph combination to serve this purpose, and would incidentally also have offered a lot of new options for encoding consonant clusters. The result might have ended up looking like a different “language” entirely. In the absence of any content, encoding could then also have defaulted to [000] [000] [000] if needed purely to fill space.
|
|
|
Broken Sword 3 |
Posted by: Lissu - 16-03-2024, 12:14 AM - Forum: Fiction, Comics, Films & Videos, Games & other Media
- No Replies
|
|
Voynich Manuscript is also mentioned in the 2003 adventure video game Broken Sword 3!
I have played this game through a couple of times. In this story the manuscript is about ley lines.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The manuscript is mentioned slightly after 11 minutes in the video I linked!
|
|
|
Ambiguous Spaces |
Posted by: Emma May Smith - 12-03-2024, 11:18 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (28)
|
|
I'm currently putting together some new research and wonder what the general consensus was around ambiguous spaces in the transcription.
Ambiguous spaces are honestly highlighted in the transcription but I'm unsure exactly how they should be processed. Short of examining each one individual and making my own judgement, I'm faced with one of three solutions:
- Treat all as real spaces.
- Treat none as real spaces.
- Treat them according to the glyphs/words either side.
Option 1 and 2 are easy and quick. Three is a little more time-consuming but still possible, but I don't know whether it will bring me any real benefits.
A fourth option might be to run all the analysis twice with options 1 and 2, but that would still leave me with the question which set of results is correct. I would then face the risk of choosing the results which looked best even though the choice regarding spaces was not optimal.
Any thoughts would be welcome.
|
|
|
|