+- 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: Syllabification (/thread-201.html)
RE: Syllabification - -JKP- - 18-04-2016
(18-04-2016, 12:00 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Helmut, I confess I lose your logic a bit, maybe that's misunderstanding due to language barrier (English is not my native and I guess yours neither), but nonetheless.
Let's continue the example with 89 (or de, or ds). I say it stands for "deus". In that case it represents a word. You confirm that it may stand for "deus" (hence, it would represent a word, as supposed). But you continue that 89 may well not stand for "deus", but also may stand for something else, depending on the context. That's fine, but that does not deprive the thing that 89 stands for of its property of being a word. It does not become a sentence or a syllable. We only have a one-to-many mapping instead of one-to-one mapping.
It can stand for a concept. It doesn't have to stand for a word.
Helmut has posted not only a possible breakdown of these "components" but has given examples of what they might represent.
RE: Syllabification - Helmut Winkler - 18-04-2016
(18-04-2016, 03:50 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(18-04-2016, 12:00 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Helmut, I confess I lose your logic a bit, maybe that's misunderstanding due to language barrier (English is not my native and I guess yours neither), but nonetheless.
Let's continue the example with 89 (or de, or ds). I say it stands for "deus". In that case it represents a word. You confirm that it may stand for "deus" (hence, it would represent a word, as supposed). But you continue that 89 may well not stand for "deus", but also may stand for something else, depending on the context. That's fine, but that does not deprive the thing that 89 stands for of its property of being a word. It does not become a sentence or a syllable. We only have a one-to-many mapping instead of one-to-one mapping.
It can stand for a concept. It doesn't have to stand for a word.
Helmut has posted not only a possible breakdown of these "components" but has given examples of what they might represent.
Thank you
(17-04-2016, 11:40 PM)crezac Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You can't use a qualified statement to dispute a statement of fact and then follow it up with a contradictory statement of fact. It doesn't make your fact correct. Anton's statement is not necessarily true but "A Voynich word is not a word in a linguistic sense, whatever it may be" is not necessarily true either.
Rather than just make the statement could you explain why you are certain that a VMS word is not a linguistic word? An abbreviated word is still a word in a linguistic sense - if I call someone a tard it isn't polite or P.C., but it has semantic content and is an abbreviated form of another word (perhaps P.C. would have been a better example).
You want to read VMS as abbreviated 15th century Latin. When (or if) it is read, it will be read as whatever it is
You can't use a qualified statement ...
I can do whatever I like and you can disapprove as long as you like
Rather than just make the statement ...
Voynich words are an artificial partititioning of the flow of the text. Its like writing 'Gods av et heQ een'. I never found out who introduced the concept.
(18-04-2016, 12:00 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Helmut, I confess I lose your logic a bit, maybe that's misunderstanding due to language barrier (English is not my native and I guess yours neither), but nonetheless.
Let's continue the example with 89 (or de, or ds). I say it stands for "deus". In that case it represents a word. You confirm that it may stand for "deus" (hence, it would represent a word, as supposed). But you continue that 89 may well not stand for "deus", but also may stand for something else, depending on the context. That's fine, but that does not deprive the thing that 89 stands for of its property of being a word. It does not become a sentence or a syllable. We only have a one-to-many mapping instead of one-to-one mapping.
1) I think the fundamental difference between you and me is that you think the ms. is a ciphre and I don't
2) I don't think you understand how medieval abbreviations are working. That is why I said some time ago some people should read the Capelli introduction. 89 would never stand as abbr. for deus, only de or ds (as a matter of fact I would say with a 89 you would have a nomenclator). When, as a scribe in the 15th c. you were using abbreviations, there were rules how to make abbreviations, which were kept more or less. Which means one should try to read the text as it is standing and by applying the medieval rules one should be able to reconstruct the text of the ms. At least that is what scholars are doing every day on highly abbr. mss. of law or theology and I don't see why the VMs should be different.
RE: Syllabification - Anton - 18-04-2016
Quote:It can stand for a concept. It doesn't have to stand for a word.
What's the difference? Could you please provide an example? In a language, are not concepts conveyed with words?
Quote:1) I think the fundamental difference between you and me is that you think the ms. is a ciphre and I don't
I don't think this introduces any difference, since both cipher and abbreviation are operations on plain text in accordance with pre-defined rules, hence we may treat abbreviation as a kind of cipher.
Quote:89 would never stand as abbr. for deus, only de or ds (as a matter of fact I would say with a 89 you would have a nomenclator).
I once encountered "89" in a 15th century manuscript diagram and interpreted it as "deus". Perhaps I was wrong. That really does not matter. We may designate the abbreviated word whatever. Let's call it "XXX", or "ABC" or whatever you wish, and assume that this "ABC" maps to one or more possibilities.
Quote:Voynich words are an artificial partititioning of the flow of the text. Its like writing 'Gods av et heQ een'.
Thatis exactly what I meant when I wrote "OK then probably the script is taken not for its face value, but with some additional provisions - like adjacent groups of symbols not representing words."
RE: Syllabification - crezac - 18-04-2016
"Voynich words are an artificial partititioning of the flow of the text. Its like writing 'Gods av et heQ een'. I never found out who introduced the concept.".
Who introduced the concept doesn't matter, it is still "not necessarily true". I do like the idea though, in an abstract way. It's a topic that deserves its own thread since it requires more than a linguistic approach and doesn't seem to relate to syllabification.
And you may of course do as you like. The unstated, but implied, portion of my statement was "if you want to be fair to Anton".
RE: Syllabification - ReneZ - 19-04-2016
Saying that some of the signs strongly appear to be derived from symbols used in abbreviations (or are in fact copies of such symbols), is not saying that they also have this meaning. I also don't believe that JKP or Helmut were saying this.
Even when the 9 appears primarily in the locations where it would be used as an abbreviation, this does not imply that it should be read as con- at the start or -us at the end.
I would even argue that it is quite unlikely. The 9 is a frequent symbol. It appears far more frequently than plain text 'us' would be expected to appear. In fact, it appears roughly at the end of every 3rd word type.
Alternatively, if one does expand 9 as 'us', the resulting text will turn out more like incantations, or 'speaking in tongues' than a meaningful plain text. Many proposed translations in fact do appear like that.
The same argument could be expressed in terms of entropy. The second order entropy would be further reduced when translating Voynichese 9 to plain text 'us', which is the opposite of what one would like to achieve.
Word-final -89 (Eva -dy) is still very high frequency, and its plain text equivalent would also be something high-frequency. For that reason it could represent a single character or single sound, rather than a pair.
RE: Syllabification - Helmut Winkler - 19-04-2016
The con abbr. is a numeral, a 9 (nine) as well and what if it really is a numeral in the VMs text or even worse, in some places a numeral but not in others?
RE: Syllabification - -JKP- - 19-04-2016
(18-04-2016, 02:53 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:JKP: It can stand for a concept. It doesn't have to stand for a word.
What's the difference? Could you please provide an example? In a language, are not concepts conveyed with words?
Writing words like hut, puppy, etc., is a different linguistic system from writing house-small-fuzzy or dog-small-fuzzy. Many Asian languages work like this, as do some of the very old European languages, concept-modifier, concept-modifier.
Sometimes the modifier is a different vowel, as in old Hebrew, sometimes the modifier is a radical (character), as in some east-Asian scripts. Sometimes the modifier is a shape or syllable attached to the main concept as in some of the Malaysian languages.
It's my opinion that the VMS "language" if such a thing exists, has more in common with this kind of system than with a language like English. That's how a label in the astrological section can conceivably be the same as a label in the small-plants section, especially if some of the "root" syllables or modifiers encompass a verb or state of being.
Also... for the record... I've mentioned this before, but it's possible the system for the labels differs (or differs somewhat) from the system used for the main text.