Hello, here is data based on the ranking of usage of word-endings in the manuscript and their relative ranks based on whether they end a line, or end a word mid-line.
Quote:-sama (EVA -dy) ranks first as word ending, and first as line ending
-nero (EVA -aiin) ranks second as word ending, and third as line ending
-nese (EVA -am) ranks 20th as word ending, and second as line ending. In fact, it appears 178 times in the middle of a line, and 424 times at the end of a line.
-neme (EVA -al) ranks 7th as word ending, and 4th as line ending. In fact, it appears 1588 times in the middle of a line, and 213 times at the end of a line
-nehe (EVA -ar) ranks 5th as word ending, and 5th as line ending. In fact, it appears 2052 times in the middle of a line, and 170 times at the end of a line
-rame (EVA -ol) ranks 4th as word ending, and 6th as line ending. In fact, it appears 3008 times in the middle of a line, and 167 times at the end of a line
-mema (EVA -ly) ranks 19th as word ending, and 7th as line ending. In fact, it appears 187 times in the middle of a line, and 134 times at the end of a line
-hema (EVA -ry) ranks 27th as word ending, and 8th as line ending. In fact, it appears 85 times in the middle of a line, and 102 times at the end of a line
-tema (EVA -ky) ranks 9th as word ending, and 9th as line ending. In fact, it appears 507 times in the middle of a line, and 100 times at the end of a line
-nama (EVA -ey) ranks 3rd as word ending, and 10th as line ending. In fact, it appears 3280 times in the middle of a line, and 100 times at the end of a line
-rahe (EVA -or) ranks 6th as word ending, and 11th as line ending. In fact, it appears 1763 times in the middle of a line, and 81 times at the end of a line
-tima (EVA -ty) ranks 15th as word ending, and 12th as line ending. In fact, it appears 298 times in the middle of a line, and 68 times at the end of a line
My observations:
EVA endings “am”, “ly”, “ry”, “ty” seem to finish ideas.
EVA endings “ol”, “ey”, “or” seem to be mid-idea.
But if we want to be accurate, maybe we should consider EVA ending “ey” as an outlier and correct our assumption. Thus, character “y” should be seen as a punctuating character, while characters “ol” and “or” as grammatical cases of mid-sentence meanings. Probably, instead of grammatical case, one should see them as maybe a number ending for singular and plural. If “ol” and “or” stand for plural and singular, or some similar feature, the stem of the words ending in “ol” and “or” should appear irrespective of how the word ends, which we definitely see in the manuscript, and the 19 most common word stems using “or” use “ol” more often systematically. If plural/singular meaning should be attached to “or” and “ol”, one should explore, for those 19 most common word stems the other endings that appear systematically. Within these 19 most common word stems for the endings “or” and “ol”, “ol” ranks second as a word ending, and “or” ranks seventh as a word ending.
The systematic use of word finals that come seventh or earlier in the list with the word stems that we are considering here is pretty noteworthy.
Thus, the word endings come in the following order:
Quote:-nero (EVA -aiin) comes 1st with the 19 words, and comes 2nd globally
-rame (EVA -ol) comes 2nd with the 19 words, and comes 4th globally
-nama (EVA -ey) comes 3rd with the 19 words, and comes 3rd globally
-sama (EVA -dy) comes 4th with the 19 words, and comes 1st globally
-nehe (EVA -ar) comes 5th with the 19 words, and comes 5th globally
-neme (EVA -al) comes 6th with the 19 words, and comes 7th globally
-rahe (EVA -or) comes 7th with the 19 words, and comes 6th globally
When it comes to word structure of the stems that constitute the relationship, we can extend the 19 most common word stems list to 22 thus obtaining the following regular expressions
We also have ta, te, ti, di, tena. (case_2)
We also have sa, ha, he, as well as nu, nuna, no, nona.
If necessary, I will provide EVA correspondence with these word structures. From word_stem + case_2 at least, we get the following EVA list:
This question challenges me as someone in this forum told me that the likelihood of someone resembling his culture and society is high. Obviously, when we deal with a new gene in an evolving species, we get to recognize its uniqueness. Bur when we deal with people, we think everyone is subject to a conformist view.
Yet, I don't want to come with assumptions without raising a new question: let's say someone wants to produce something as puzzling as the Voynich MS.
In your opinion, which strategy would bring more beneficial results: creating a cryptic script for English? Or creating a whole new language and a script for that language?
If 2 is your opinion, do you think you'd go for an English looking language or go for something that has unheard of features which wouldn't easily translate into the languages you already know?
Has anyone explored the idea that sequences that retreat themselves in a row in the Voynich MS might actually be numbers, or at least some of them? Whereby they would express things like a thousand thousand or a million million, or maybe even a ten ten, if Voynichese doesn't have a word for a hundred? I don't know of any hypothesis around this and I'm not sure how to study this aspect. Knowing that I can extract them, what could be the next step to explore this idea?
There are three systems of numerical interpretation that can be applied to the VMs glyphs. The systems used are the Greek, Roman, and medieval numerical systems and their symbol sets. The location where this is seen is in VMs f57v, in the circular band known as the '4 by 17 symbol sequence', and is focused on the first five symbols in that sequence, which are known in EVA as o, l, d, r, and v.
Beginning with the fifth symbol, the VMs glyph has the form of an inverted 'v'. In Greek this would be lambda. In the Roman interpretation it could also be a letter or a number written upside down. In the set of medieval numerical symbols as seen on Typus Arithmetica, this is the numeral for seven. While visual interpretations probably need to be seen as subjective, there is obviously reason to agree with these well-known possibilities. Still the question remains whether these symbols can be evaluated by subjective interpretations.
So, the VMs provides further proof. In the VMs system, the first glyph is comparable to the letter omicron in the Greek alphabet. The presence of three intervening symbols between lambda and omicron is correct in the Greek system, as is the ability to read in either direction.
Likewise, the second symbol in the VMs system is comparable to the numeral for four in the medieval system and the placement relationship between 4 and 7 shows the expected two spaces in the proper direction.
Finally, in the Roman system, the fifth VMs symbol might be the Roman numeral for five, inverted and located in place of the *fifth* VMs glyph. Five in the fifth position.
In each case, the visual interpretation of the VMs glyph is supported by a positional component. That is, each subjective, visual interpretation is supported by an objective, positional confirmation in the relevant system. All three systems of interpretation run along the same set of VMS glyphs. I believe this is a deliberate construction in need of further investigation - a puzzle in need of a solution.
Two arguments against the nomenclator cipher hypothesis that I have met with in discussions were:
1) It would be unusual to encipher a whole book in such manner
2) It would require a huge nomenclator to encipher a volume of this size
Considering argument #1, I think that the VMS is cryptologically unusual (if not unique) anyway, so the argument of unusualness-to-be does not look a strong one to me.
Considering argument #2, I tried to estimate the size of the nomenclator, assuming what is supposedly the worst-case scenario (OK, upon further consideration it is not the worst case of course, but let's say, a "worse case") - namely, that each unique plain text word is matched to a unique vord.
According to voynich.nu, the vocabulary of the VMS is comprised of ~8100 unique vords. That would be the size of the nomenclator in question. However, the nomenclator must contain not only vords, but also their translations into words. This way, the amount of tokens in the nomenclator doubles and results in 8100 x 2 = 16200.
What folio space would be required to hold that many of tokens? This we can deduce from Q20 which presents a convenient example of folio space filled almost exclusively with text, without drawings. 23 pages of Q20 (excluding the mostly empty f116v) contain circa 10700 vords. This means the average density of 10700/23 = 470 vords per page. Let's even assume a 30% margin for breaking text into columns, leaving more free space or increasing the letter size for better legibility etc. This yields the density of 470 x 0.7 = 330 vords per page. Assuming this density for the nomenclator space, 16200 tokens will occupy 49 pages or (regarding a "folio" in this case as a two-sided sheet) 49/2 = 25 folios. This is roughly two quires of the size of the present state of Q20 (without the missing folios). In the relative figures, this would be a (234 + 49)/234 = 21% increase in the total "thickness" of the MS.
The figures look significant but not like impossible.
This calculation implicitly assumes roughly equal average token length both for plain text and cipher text, but this would not be something unexpected judging by the average vord length.
Hi again, I'm not sure if this is the perfect channel, but does anyone have any manuscripts/codices that are around the same time as MS 408.
Particularly interested in Latin, German, French and Italian.
Regards,
Alex
Which is better for cracking the Voynich Manuscript? Thinking that a certain page talks about what is displayed in the page? Or thinking that it has no specific meaning relative to the featured pictures in the page? To rephrase my question, I want to know whether the cryptologists that deal with languages have ever tried to crack natural languages without a priori knowledge, just to test how strong their methods are. For example, has anyone tried to learn Korean or a similar language by studying a random Korean book and relying only on that book just to test the effectiveness of the code breaking methods that he relies on?
I've realised, I constantly challenge and thus I should potentially other some evidence of my own. Here's a Bigram chart based on Zl transcription through some pruning.
How do you categorise the voynich manuscript?
[*]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]
René Z writes these categories.
Also I would like the folio numbers too.
Regards,
I have the Currier A and B dichotomy and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. helped greatly.
[PS: a lot of my textual analysis is useless and thus no results are being published]
