+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: [split] An interview with Stephen Bax - 1 to 1 substitution discussion (/thread-2100.html)
[split] An interview with Stephen Bax - 1 to 1 substitution discussion - -JKP- - 16-09-2017
To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
No one should be immune from critical analysis of their theories, regardless of their credentials, especially in Voynich studies where there are no experts.*
* (To be an "expert" in Voynich studies one needs high-level expertise in code-breaking, medieval languages, medieval paleography, history, iconographic analysis, botany, and more. Not a single one of us is an expert, no matter what credentials or experience we may have. We are all students of the VMS and there are many people with credentials equal or greater than Bax's who have spent decades working on this who receive less respect than he does. Think about it.)
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - farmerjohn - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 07:46 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
Yes, it certainly is.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - -JKP- - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 07:59 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 07:46 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
Yes, it certainly is.
LOL!!
The WWII Work Group would have solved it in a heartbeat.
If I can make time this weekend, I will post information on my blog that directly addresses this issue of natural language. I think I've finally figured out a way to present it so it's clear even to those with minimal familiarity with the text.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - MarcoP - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 12:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
No, I think that Stephen could be right. The script could be an abjad (some vowel sounds are not written) and some sounds might be encoded using more than one "glyph". In particular, I think there is ample evidence for the second point (e.g. the various e, ee, eee, in, iin, iin sequences). I also don't see any particular reason to a-priori exclude that it could be an abjad.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - -JKP- - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 08:20 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 12:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
No, I think that Stephen could be right. The script could be an abjad (some vowel sounds are not written) and some sounds might be encoded using more than one "glyph". In particular, I think there is ample evidence for the second point (e.g. the various e, ee, eee, in, iin, iin sequences). I also don't see any particular reason to a-priori exclude that it could be an abjad.
Well I've said that too, many times, that it might be an abjad, based on patterns I saw in the text. Hasn't every major researcher since the beginning said it might be an abjad?
The statement by itself doesn't mean anything. One has to demonstrate whether or not it is an abjad.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - Emma May Smith - 16-09-2017
Why are we saying "one-to-one substitution code" in reference to a language? Substitution ciphers are for existing scripts. Most linguistic solutions would consider that the script we see is referencing the underlying language and not some intermediate script.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - -JKP- - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 08:37 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why are we saying "one-to-one substitution code" in reference to a language? Substitution ciphers are for existing scripts. Most linguistic solutions would consider that the script we see is referencing the underlying language and not some intermediate script.
Emma, I don't know if you've watched the video, but in it there are charts and in the charts the system laid out is essentially a substitution code.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - -JKP- - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 08:20 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 12:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
No, I think that Stephen could be right. The script could be an abjad (some vowel sounds are not written) and some sounds might be encoded using more than one "glyph". In particular, I think there is ample evidence for the second point (e.g. the various e, ee, eee, in, iin, iin sequences). I also don't see any particular reason to a-priori exclude that it could be an abjad.
I already responded to the reference to abjads. I think the possibility of an abjad should always be on the table, until we know otherwise. This is an old idea, around since long before I knew about the VMS.
But, on the second point...
The question was NOT about there being a problem encoding some sounds with more than one glyph. We all know that is possible.
The question was how do you resolve the problem of there not being enough glyphs to encode all the other sounds if you use three glyphs for one sound-family. The VMS's character set is restrained to begin with. Use three-for-one and it becomes even more restrained. That's the question that was asked and instead of giving an answer, the person asking the question was dissed.
I am one of many who would like an answer to the question from the person who proposed the system. That is not an unreasonable request in any sense of the word.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - davidjackson - 16-09-2017
English has 26 letters which represent 44 common sounds. Same as Voynichese.
RE: An interview with Stephen Bax - farmerjohn - 16-09-2017
(16-09-2017, 08:01 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There may be different definitions of "substitution code", "natural", "language", "Latin", but broadly speaking it's substitution code to natural language of course.(16-09-2017, 07:59 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 07:46 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
Yes, it certainly is.
LOL!!
The WWII Work Group would have solved it in a heartbeat.
If I can make time this weekend, I will post information on my blog that directly addresses this issue of natural language. I think I've finally figured out a way to present it so it's clear even to those with minimal familiarity with the text.
As for why group X has not decoded cipher Y. I have no idea.
Though I do have one. Maybe they've spent too much time on LOLing fruitful ideas?