(24-04-2026, 09:14 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@oeesordy:

On the entropy point: I've tested that against actual MHD corpora. "Ortloff von Baierland" shows 75.4% Levenshtein-1 connectivity, "Breslauer Arzneibuch" 72.8% — basically the same range Timm claimed was unique to artificial text.

So "low entropy / many word repetitions" isn't diagnostic of a hoax - it's what you get with german medieval medical texts in general.

As for the conlang-from-substitution idea: that would require an author inventing a language with consistent morphology and syntax. A medieval scribe around 1430? That seems rather unlikely.

And I don’t want to discuss modern forgery theory in this thread, because that’s a completely different topic and would distract too much from the actual subject… I ask for your understanding. 

1. There is a second layer of variation in the lines; they are, so to speak, "partially patterned." The effect of this is actually very clearly visible in the following heatmap. Looking at it, one could roughly say that one-third to one-half of the glyphs are subject to at least a second layer of variation.
   
2. Of course (and I know this has already been discussed), it could just as easily be that "p" and "f" (if they aren't actually just a single glyph) are something like a zero glyph, and thus cph as well. And the rest of the anomalies could be due to different types of lines: labels, descriptions, lists, etc. That is also conceivable, and at the moment I'm leaning very slightly in that direction.