| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
It is not Chinese
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: oshfdk
55 minutes ago
» Replies: 118
» Views: 3,838
|
Month names collection / ...
Forum: Marginalia
Last Post: nablator
1 hour ago
» Replies: 51
» Views: 1,214
|
Wherefore art thou, aberi...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Juan_Sali
3 hours ago
» Replies: 47
» Views: 2,095
|
A method I have made to t...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: project963
7 hours ago
» Replies: 74
» Views: 8,741
|
Upcoming Voynich program ...
Forum: News
Last Post: Gregor
9 hours ago
» Replies: 10
» Views: 1,357
|
Pisces (Folio 70v) and th...
Forum: Astrology
Last Post: Dobri
16-06-2025, 07:20 PM
» Replies: 34
» Views: 4,637
|
Which plaintext languages...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Rafal
16-06-2025, 04:19 PM
» Replies: 17
» Views: 2,783
|
Favorite Plant Tournament...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Koen G
14-06-2025, 08:11 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 123
|
Favorite Plant Tournament...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Koen G
14-06-2025, 08:09 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 118
|
Favorite Plant Tournament...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Koen G
14-06-2025, 08:07 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 127
|
|
|
| Available Transcripts |
|
Posted by: Pardis Motiee - 24-05-2024, 08:16 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (3)
|
 |
I want to analyze at least one hundred pages by a program. Which means that one hundred pages must be transcribed. Is there any available transcript that separates the letters?
|
|
|
| An Imitation Voynichese |
|
Posted by: HermesRevived - 22-05-2024, 09:17 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- No Replies
|
 |
We can make an imitation of Voynichese in the following way:
1. Take two opposing words, of about the same length, in any given language.
2. Divide these words up into bigrams and trigrams.
3. Make a rule that the first bigram of the first word and last bigram of the other word are initial and final respectively.
4. Combine the bigrams and trigrams into an array of combinations.
For example, here are two opposing terms:
RUSSIA
UKRAINE
(As it happens, these words do have some of the characteristics of the Voynich words QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.)
Now divide them up into bigrams and trigrams such as:
RU SS IA
RUSS IA
RU SSIA
UK RAINE
UKR AINE
UK RA INE
Now combine them into words, keeping RU initial and AINE final.
RU
SSUK
UKIA
UK
SSIAKRAINE
IARAIN
RA
AINE
RUK
UKRU
KRIA
UKUSSIA
IARUK
RUSSUK
RUSSAINE
RAINERU
RUKIA
Some configurations are not possible. You cannot have NRKUR for example because it is not a combination of permitted bigrams or trigrams.
Here is an imitation line of text Voynich-style:
ru.ssuk.ukia.ra.ra.kria.russuk.russaine.rukia.ra.iarain.ssiar.ukia.kruss-
Now design a glyph-set that allows these words to be written in a smooth, even, continuous (peaceloving) cursive script. It might be prudent to design a single glyph for the [SS] and perhaps special glyphs to mark initials and finals.
That is essentially what Voynichese is, except the two opposing terms are QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN. This is the simplest possible formulation of the textual phenomenon we find in the Voynich manuscript. I contend that, in truth, Voynichese is only a more complex version of this. In its essential form this is what it is: two paradigmatic words, divided into bigrams and trigrams, and combined together according to some extra rules (and substitute glyphs largely marking initials and finals.)
This is not to say this is how it was made, but however it was made this is not an inaccurate description of what it amounts to prima facie.
Nor is this an unwarranted oversimplification. It is a corrective to studies that dwell on minutiae, epiphenomena and noise and fail to see the bigger picture.
It is necessary, sometimes, to step back and see the elephant.
* * *
The proper term for what we encounter in the Voynich text, and the way words rehearse variations of the paradigms QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN is metamorphosis. We can speak of mutations, variants, deviations and so forth, but metamorphosis seems the better and more fitting term. The nature of the text is metamorphic.
Voynich words are either truncations or variants of one of the paradigmatic words, QOKEEDY or CHOLDAIIN, or else combinations of variations of these paradigmata. We witness the shape of configurations changing. The paradigms metamorphosize. Every word is a metamorphosis of the paradigmata.
We can give a consistent account of all words in this way.
Thus [qokey] is a metamorphosis (by truncation) of QOKEEDY. [cholkedy] is a metamorphosis (by combination) of CHOL + KEEDY.
Often we see interplay between prefixes and suffixes - the prefix of one paradigm in combination with the suffix of the other. But we find two prefixes - [okcho] is QOK + CHOL - and other combinations as well.
The basis for the interplay are the natural divisions of the paradigms.
QOKEEDY naturally breaks into three parts: QO + KEE + DY.
Or (dropping the initial and final glyphs) : OK + KE + ED
CHOLDAIIN naturally bifurcates: CHOL + DAIIN.
But QOKEEDY can be broken into two in the manner of (under the influence of) CHOLDAIIN: QOK + EEDY, or QO + KEEDY.
And CHOLDAIIN can be broken into three like QOKEEDY: CHO + LD + AIIN, which also permits other bifurcations CHOLD + AIIN and CHO + LDAIIN.
In short, the paradigms can be broken into a set of bigrams and trigrams (and quadrigrams where two bigrams are intact.)
* * *
Here is an account of a smattering of words that demonstrates some of the types of metamorphosis that occur:
tchedy is a metamorphosis of KEEDY
qokey = QOKEEDY
okeey = QOKEEDY
lkeey = LD + KEEDY
qokeor = QOK + CHOL
chedy = KEEDY
cheokeey = CHO + KEEDY
qokeey = QOKEEDY
chedl = CHO + LD
lkair = LD + AIIN
alkeedy = CHOL + KEEDY
ram = DAIIN
pchedy = KEEDY
qosaiin = QOK + DAIIN
cheopchy = CHOL + KEEDY
cheeos = CHOL
In lines of text we often see groupings of words with the same structure. For example:
f53v.P.8
sheey.kshody.tsheody.sheody.sheetchy.opod-
Every word in this line - except the last - is a metamorphosis of KEEDY. This line of text rehearses variants of KEEDY. Why, for what reason, and what determines the order, are further questions.
R.B.
|
|
|
|
| Aries vs Capricorn |
|
Posted by: Pardis Motiee - 19-05-2024, 08:58 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (3)
|
|
We have two goat-like illustrations, one at folio 70v and the other at folio 71r, I get words in meaning of "frozen ewe" for 70v and "goat" for 71r. What characteristics of the drawings can distinguish the two animals?
|
|
|
|
| initial characters, to be last? right-to-left handwritting? |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 16-05-2024, 07:14 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (2)
|
|
As I imagine, all of us have been through René Zandbergen's magnificent website.
I read the chapter called Non-sequential writing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I was a bit surprised by the conclusions of this part of the text: "In a few places, it appears as if the first characters of lines were written in a vertical column first, possibly to create a straight left margin. The remainder of the text was then added later. The following example is one paragraph on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Especially in the last two lines of this fragment, there is a strong suggestion that the initial characters were written first, and the remainder of the line was written later."
I always try to imagine the scriba who was writing the manuscript, and I do not agree with this conclusion. If you are writing from left to right, the overlapping of the characters of rows 5 and 6 in the paragraph, in my opinion, can only have two different root causes. For me, it is not that the initial characters were written first. It makes no sense. If they were already written first, the scriba should have plenty of space at the right to write, so why should he overlap the first and second characters? 
In my opinion, there are two different hypotheses: (first, imagine that the drawing was already there before the writing)
- The initial characters were written last. So, there was first the whole paragraph (or the whole row of the paragraph), written from left to right. Then, at the end, the initial character was written there to avoid overlapping the drawing. He left no space enough between the last two lines and the drawing, so he overlaps the characters.
- The scriba was writing from right to left, so at the last character, he had no space and had to overlap the first and second character.
I think both hypotheses open new theories. The first hypothesis makes me wonder what kind of scriba would not write the first character first. Why should he leave that character at the end of the writing? The second hypothesis might make us consider more deeply the possibility of right-to-left text writing (such as Arabic).
If everything here has already been discussed, sorry for my entry.
|
|
|
|
| High ammount of bidirectional pairs |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 16-05-2024, 03:34 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (3)
|
|
Hello all,
I have just started working with the intriguing Voynich Manuscript, attempting to shed some light on its text analysis. I conducted some basic text analysis using the V101 v. 2a transliteration file.
I programmed a bidirectional pair detection algorithm. By "bidirectional pair," I mean a pair of words that appear in both directions, such as "AAA BBB" and "BBB AAA." I found 1,284 bidirectional pairs (or 642 unique pairs, each counted twice due to the direction).
I understand that this phenomenon is not commonly found to such an extent in known languages. As far as I know, no known natural language routinely produces as many bidirectional pairs as I have identified. This could suggest either a highly artificial or constructed language or perhaps some unique feature or quirk of the manuscript's text.
I apologize if this finding has been reported before; I was unable to find any previous entries on this topic.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts.
Here are the top 20 bidirectional pairs I have found:
BIDIRECTIONAL PAIRS
1284 bidirectional pairs
TOP BIDIRECTIONAL PAIRS:
Pair 1: ('oy', 'am'), Count: 50
Pair 2: ('am', 'oy'), Count: 6
Pair 1: ('s', 'am'), Count: 47
Pair 2: ('am', 's'), Count: 3
Pair 1: ('1oe', '1oe'), Count: 21
Pair 2: ('1oe', '1oe'), Count: 21
Pair 1: ('am', 'oe'), Count: 13
Pair 2: ('oe', 'am'), Count: 20
Pair 1: ('ay', 'ae'), Count: 25
Pair 2: ('ae', 'ay'), Count: 7
Pair 1: ('1oe', '8am'), Count: 24
Pair 2: ('8am', '1oe'), Count: 5
Pair 1: ('ay', 'am'), Count: 26
Pair 2: ('am', 'ay'), Count: 3
Pair 1: ('8am', '8am'), Count: 11
Pair 2: ('8am', '8am'), Count: 11
Pair 1: ('oe', 'oe'), Count: 11
Pair 2: ('oe', 'oe'), Count: 11
Pair 1: ('oy', 'oe'), Count: 11
Pair 2: ('oe', 'oy'), Count: 11
Pair 1: ('oe', '1c89'), Count: 19
Pair 2: ('1c89', 'oe'), Count: 3
Pair 1: ('4oe', '1c89'), Count: 10
Pair 2: ('1c89', '4oe'), Count: 10
Pair 1: ('s', 'ay'), Count: 17
Pair 2: ('ay', 's'), Count: 2
Pair 1: ('8am', 'oe'), Count: 6
Pair 2: ('oe', '8am'), Count: 13
Pair 1: ('4ohan', '1c89'), Count: 8
Pair 2: ('1c89', '4ohan'), Count: 11
Pair 1: ('oe', '1c9'), Count: 13
Pair 2: ('1c9', 'oe'), Count: 5
Pair 1: ('ay', 'ay'), Count: 9
Pair 2: ('ay', 'ay'), Count: 9
Pair 1: ('ay', 'oy'), Count: 8
Pair 2: ('oy', 'ay'), Count: 9
Pair 1: ('4ohae', '1c89'), Count: 10
Pair 2: ('1c89', '4ohae'), Count: 7
Pair 1: ('4ohc89', '4ohc89'), Count: 8
Pair 2: ('4ohc89', '4ohc89'), Count: 8
|
|
|
|
| Hapax Legomena - A Word Game |
|
Posted by: HermesRevived - 15-05-2024, 08:48 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- No Replies
|
|
Here is a simple word game for Voynicheroes. I'II call it HAPAX LEGOMENA.
It is based entirely on the DAIIN text that runs throughout the Voynich manuscript. This text is based on the paradigm CHOLDAIIN, without any elements from the other paradigm, QOKEEDY. So there is no Q or gallows glyphs or E or Y.
The DAIIN text dominates in the sections of the text called Currier A or Text A. How well do you know the A Text?
The objective is to find rare words that appear in - are attested in - the Voynich corpus.
The best outcome is to find a hapax legomenon. Finding these is the direct object of each turn of play.
Play proceeds by selecting sequences of bigrams from the following key:
Rule: The last glyph of each bigram must be the first glyph of the next bigram, but you can stop at any point.
The word CHOLDAIIN therefore is made by selecting: CHO + OL + LD + DA + AIIN
As it happens, this word - even though the paradigm - is a hapax legomenon. It occurs once and once only, on f17v. CHOL and DAIIN are prolific, but there is only one attestation of them together as a single word.
Can we find other hapax legomena?
To this end the bigrams in the KEY are arranged from common to rare going left to right. OL is common. OD is less common. OIIN is less common again. OA is even less common, then OCH and finally OO which is valid but very rare.
The words created by our selections are either ATTESTED or UNATTESTED. The fewer attestations - without encountering an unattested combination - the better. We are seeking attested words that are rare.
Play might start by selecting any of the bigrams by chance - tiles from a hat.
An example:
We start with the bigram LO.
Since O is the final glyph in the bigram we have the options: OL, OD, OIIN, OA, OCH, OO.
We know that if we select OL, this will be a common combination. If we select OA, this will be relatively rare.
We select OD. So we have: LOD.
Now what glyph joins with D?
Our options are: DA, DO, DCH, DL, DD.
We know that if we go too wide and select, say, DCH, and our word becomes LODCH we are in danger of combining too many rare combinations and will hit a 'Does not occur in the manuscript.'
We decide to play safe and select DA.
Now we have LODA.
At this point we decide to finish it off and select IIN to follow A, even though we know that this is a common combination.
It is a good strategy to combine relatively rarely bigrams with common ones.
Our word is: LODAIIN.
Attestations: Three.
This is an excellent result - a valid but very rare word.
If we had overplayed it and gone further to, say, LODCHAIIN, we would have found a word that is unattested in the corpus. Fail.
* * *
This is Round One. It uses only the standard glyphs of the CHOLDAIIN paradigm.
In the second round, though, substitute glyphs are permitted in the search for rare but attested combinations.
At any point we can choose to call the glyph CH the glyph SH instead, or S. And L or N can be R or M.
For example, if our selection is the bigram CHO, we can nominate to call it SHO instead. If our selection is OL we can call it OR if we choose, or OM (realising that OM is rarer than OR.) .
This strategy will always make our word less common.
As a third round, it is permitted to introduce ONE glyph from the QOKEEDY paradigm that can be substituted for any glyph in the Key.
In our example, LODAIIN, we can substite any one glyph from QOKEEDY. So we might decide to substitute Q for the L making QODAIIN. But this has 42 attestations - not a common word, but not as good as LODAIIN with only three.
(We know that LOQAIIN or LODAQ and so on are unattested. To avoid this it is a good strategy to substitute glyphs in the same place. Use Q at the start of words and Y at the end.)
Seasoned players know that substituting EE for CH is a good move, and so is substituting Y for O.
* * *
The game can be played as a solitaire or by two competing players. In that case, players take it in turns.
If a player hits an UNATTESTED they are forced to play again. If a player happily hits a HAPAX their opponent is forced to play two rounds.
Scoring is like in golf. A HAPAX is like a hole-in-one!
The player with the lowest score at the end of a set number of rounds wins.
* * *
While I have cast this as a game for fun, it does demonstrate a way to isolate the DAIIN text and a useful template of bigrams. As Rene has remarked, in some ways the Voynich text can be characterized as the DAIIN text, into which another stream intrudes. I also suspect there is some significance to hapax legomena and this game draws attention to that phenomenon. The game is a device to help us learn Voynichese.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
R.B. |
|
|
|
|
