+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-28.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich tasks (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-32.html)
+---- Forum: Positions we can agree upon (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-53.html)
+---- Thread: [Text] word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] (/thread-2360.html)
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - -JKP- - 05-04-2018
There might be some skepticism about this, but I don't think qo is a bigraph.
I'm not 100% positive, but I've spent a great deal of time looking at this word structure and I suspect what is happening is that q is commonly prepended to tokens beginning with "o" and thus it resembles a bigraph, but the "q" does not require "o" to follow. There are times when "q" goes in front of other things.
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - Koen G - 05-04-2018
Some skepticism here
Take "qu" in English. It's usually a bigraph but you also get "q" without u in loans. There's a wiki about it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Quote:While this is true in the vast majority of cases, there are some exceptions, the majority of which are romanised from Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Inuktitut, or other languages which do not use the English alphabet
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - davidjackson - 05-04-2018
Quote:Take "qu" in English. It's usually a bigraph but you also get "q" without u in loans. There's a wiki about it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..Which I said earlier.
Of course, let's not get hung up on a direct correspondence : q ain't necessarily q.
But if q+o Appears in say, 90% of cases it's an indication that something is going on. If Voynich ese glyphs are letters, then we have a bigraph. If they aren't, we still have a syllable.
Hey, this dates from the 15th century You think they knew about loan words then?
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - Koen G - 05-04-2018
(05-04-2018, 07:39 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You think they knew about loan words then?
Could be transcribed names for people, places... And they must have been aware that many of their names for plants, for example, were of foreign origin as well.
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - davidjackson - 05-04-2018
As they say, the exception proves (tests) the rule.
Quote:By they should all comply with the language rules, (here I extrapolate from known natural languages ) unless they are loan words - in which case, how is the encoding system working if it is bending a bigraph?
English works well in this case, it has no problem in accommodating q+vowel but only in the case of loan words. A peculiarity of which I know of no studies.
But how would an encoding system capable of producing voynichese cope with these loan words
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - -JKP- - 05-04-2018
(05-04-2018, 07:39 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Of course, let's not get hung up on a direct correspondence : q ain't necessarily q.
Personally, I don't think it is q, but q is the EVA-correspondence, so I usually call it q for EVA-convenience.
Quote:But if q+o Appears in say, 90% of cases it's an indication that something is going on. If Voynich ese glyphs are letters, then we have a bigraph. If they aren't, we still have a syllable.
I totally agree that something is going on, but I think there's a difference between qo + token and q + token that usually starts with "o" and I'm leaning toward it being the latter.
Quote:Hey, this dates from the 15th century You think they knew about loan words then?
They used loan-words more than we do. They were constantly inserting Greek, Latin, and Hebrew into their text.
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - davidjackson - 05-04-2018
Quote:They used loan-words more than we do. They were constantly inserting Greek, Latin, and Hebrew into their text.But there was no philosophical difference between their vernacular and the loan word. That is they wouldn't have known to change the encryption method to make loam words appear the same as regular words.
Quote:I totally agree that something is going on, but I think there's a difference between qo + token and q + token that usually starts with "o" and I'm leaning toward it being the latterEntirely possible, which is why we need the statistics. Cmon people!
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - MarcoP - 05-04-2018
(05-04-2018, 08:17 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Entirely possible, which is why we need the statistics. Cmon people!
Hi David,
which statistics do you think could help us understand more of this matter?
In her four posts about qo- and o-, Emma has already presented and discussed many numbers. Is your idea double-checking them, possibly on a different transcription, or are you thinking of something different?
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - davidjackson - 05-04-2018
Get an average number based on different transcriptions. We know what we need so it's fairly easy to run the numbers across different transcriptions.
The scenario is q+[?^o] versus q+o.
Now, we don't know the percentage of writing errors as nick pointed out recently. Ideally we should have all q+[?^o] options regularised in Eva so we can analyse them and discard transcription errors
What I would like is to be able to discard the motion that this is a fixed bigraph.
RE: word starting [q] must have a valid counterpart word starting [o] - Emma May Smith - 05-04-2018
(05-04-2018, 07:06 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There might be some skepticism about this, but I don't think qo is a bigraph.
I'm not 100% positive, but I've spent a great deal of time looking at this word structure and I suspect what is happening is that q is commonly prepended to tokens beginning with "o" and thus it resembles a bigraph, but the "q" does not require "o" to follow. There are times when "q" goes in front of other things.
No scepticism here. This is exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate. So far I have three pieces of evidence:
1) [q] and [o] both appear in single glyph sequences, specifically f76r.
2) [q] appears before [e], [y], [k], and some other glyphs about 100 times.
3) The most common words beginning [q] mostly also occur without [q].
I think (hope!) that the idea of [qo] being a bigraph should, at best, be considered an interesting hypothesis. But the alternative hypothesis seems to be stronger.
(Also, does nobody have any comments about the other points raised in my blog post about '[q] triplets'? There's an observation about how the first glyph of the plain form governs the frequency of the [o] and [q] forms. It's fascinating, I promise.)