+- 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 - Diane - 16-04-2016
Anton,
I'm an agnostic about the script. I realise that some of its glyphs resemble the Latin alphabet and others resemble standard abbreviations used in Latin. Others have pointed out similarities to abbreviations used in Greek. Other glyphs - in fact all, I think, find parallels in scripts derived from the Aramaic script.
But I'm fascinated to read Helmut's comment that the glyphs which resemble Latin abbreviations appear in the same relative positions in Voynich 'words'. I should have thought that if the text were enciphered that structural thing would have been less obvious, obscured by the cipher, or that because it was enciphered the abbreviation "9" would be represented by some other glyph. No wonder the text drives the cryptanalysts crazy!
RE: Syllabification - Helmut Winkler - 16-04-2016
(16-04-2016, 09:31 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton,
I'm an agnostic about the script. I realise that some of its glyphs resemble the Latin alphabet and others resemble standard abbreviations used in Latin. Others have pointed out similarities to abbreviations used in Greek. Other glyphs - in fact all, I think, find parallels in scripts derived from the Aramaic script.
But I'm fascinated to read Helmut's comment that the glyphs which resemble Latin abbreviations appear in the same relative positions in Voynich 'words'. I should have thought that if the text were enciphered that structural thing would have been less obvious, obscured by the cipher, or that because it was enciphered the abbreviation "9" would be represented by some other glyph. No wonder the text drives the cryptanalysts crazy!
The post came from JKP, I think, but I am more or less of the same opinion
RE: Syllabification - Anton - 16-04-2016
(16-04-2016, 08:43 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(14-04-2016, 06:49 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Taking the script at its face value can be put under a very simple test. Let one take the most frequent word - daiin (or any other high-freq word). And then let him match this word or words with the pool of most frequent words in other contemporary works and see if he succeeds.
I don't think there is reason to believe that Voynich 'words' are identical with words in a natural language
Hmm, if we take a script for its face value, then we expect that the chunks of symbols represent words, do we not? Because that's the function that a script fulfils in language.
Those chunks may be words abbreviated or non-abbreviated, but they should be words, within the framework of the "face value" assumption.
RE: Syllabification - Helmut Winkler - 16-04-2016
(16-04-2016, 02:51 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm, if we take a script for its face value, then we expect that the chunks of symbols represent words, do we not? Because that's the function that a script fulfils in language.
Those chunks may be words abbreviated or non-abbreviated, but they should be words, within the framework of the "face value" assumption.
That is not necessarily true. A Voynich word is not a word in a linguistic sense, whatever it may be.
RE: Syllabification - Anton - 16-04-2016
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. It means that we cannot read it - like one can read plain text or abbreviated text. Rather, one needs to decode it.
RE: Syllabification - Helmut Winkler - 17-04-2016
(16-04-2016, 04:45 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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. It means that we cannot read it - like one can read plain text or abbreviated text. Rather, one needs to decode it.
I think we can and should read it as an abbreviated text in an 15c. Latin script
RE: Syllabification - Anton - 17-04-2016
My understanding is that, in an abbreviated text, words (abbreviated) do represent words (unabbreviated). Like, when I write the (abbreviated) word "89", that represents the (unabbreviated) word "Deus".
Is not that correct?
RE: Syllabification - Helmut Winkler - 17-04-2016
(17-04-2016, 01:34 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My understanding is that, in an abbreviated text, words (abbreviated) do represent words (unabbreviated). Like, when I write the (abbreviated) word "89", that represents the (unabbreviated) word "Deus".
Is not that correct?
No, not really. When you write abbreviated de or ds, it is unabbreviated deus (or can be something else, e.g. in the case of ds dominus, depends on the context). The two possible ways of abbreviating a word are suspension or contraction. I am talking of a medieval European text, of course, to make that clear.
RE: Syllabification - crezac - 17-04-2016
(16-04-2016, 03:28 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-04-2016, 02:51 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm, if we take a script for its face value, then we expect that the chunks of symbols represent words, do we not? Because that's the function that a script fulfils in language.
Those chunks may be words abbreviated or non-abbreviated, but they should be words, within the framework of the "face value" assumption.
That is not necessarily true.
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
RE: Syllabification - Anton - 18-04-2016
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.