+- 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] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections (/thread-2658.html)
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Davidsch - 18-09-2019
(There is big difference between an artificial and universal language, but for my point it's not important)
Following the previous threads, if the text of the Voynich contains repetitive (nonsense) text, which apparently is commonly accepted seeing other threads, it is not necessary to apply corrections.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Torsten - 18-09-2019
JKP, indeed there are modifications in form of added or modified glyphs. This was the reason for me to write that there are no corrections in form of deleted glyphs.
The modifications result in interesting patterns. The most common type of correction is the modification of glyphs like 'e' into 's' or 'ch' into 'sh'. Examples for this type of corrections are the modification from 'qoeeedy' into 'qoesedy' in line f82r.P2.24 and the modification of 'chedy chedy' into 'chsdy shedy' in line f75r.P.32. What we see here are corrections by adding a quill stroke and the outcome are unique or rarely used word types.
This means this type of corrections work the opposite way than expected for a text using natural language. We would expect to see corrections for rarely or unique word types but instead frequently used word types were modified. Moreover, by modifying common word types the repetition within the text was reduced and not increased. It seems that we don't see scraped out words since it was possible to make corrections by adding or modifying glyphs.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - -JKP- - 18-09-2019
I think I have seen a scraped-out word, but it was years ago that I made my transcripts (I didn't make a note of the location of the scraping) and as far as I remember it was the only one I noticed.
If it is the only one, in a manuscript of 200 folios, then that does say something about the other kinds of corrections.
Torsten, I like the arguments you put forward regarding the kinds of corrections that do exist and what it may say about the text (in terms of being different from corrections one might see in natural language script (or one-to-one substitution of natural language characters)). I think it is worth noting how they work and where they occur.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - bi3mw - 18-09-2019
(18-09-2019, 12:38 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....
Following the previous threads, if the text of the Voynich contains repetitive (nonsense) text, which apparently is commonly accepted seeing other threads, it is not necessary to apply corrections.
Yes, if you just want to produce nonsense text, any correction is unnecessary. The fact that there are corrections speaks for a meaningful text. Of course, what kind of content is left open, but even with a system that can not be decrypted, one has to assume that the author(s) wanted to do it right.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - RenegadeHealer - 19-09-2019
davidsch, I get the hint that you're thoroughly sold on the hoax hypothesis. But if you're implying that the hoax hypothesis is becoming consensus here, or is the only rationally tenable VMS theory anymore, I'm not sure I agree with you on that.
bi3mw, he'll have to speak for himself, but I think Torsten's point is that the preferred type of correction evident in the VMS is actually a more severe indictment of the meaningful text hypotheses than a lack of any sort of corrections would be. If I follow Torsten correctly, it appears to him that after randomly generating >2 identical or nearly identical vords, the scribe seems to have been like, Uh oh, too many repetitions will arouse suspicion. Better add another stroke to one of those words that makes it different from the others! I think this point has merit.
On the other hand, I can think of an alternate explanation for, say, amending 'chedy chedy' to 'chedy shedy'. I know that in Arabic, the vowel marks are not usually written, because they're usually not necessary for comprehension. But every now and then context does not make it clear which vowel sounds should be inserted where, and in that case, just enough vowel marks will be written on that word to clear up this ambiguity. Assuming the VMS's text is meaningful in some way, It's possible, for example, that EVA 'chedy' can stand for more than one meaning and pronunciation, depending on context. But more than one 'chedy' written back to back would provide a reader two few contextual clues to tell how to pronounce each one. So amending one of them, either by expressing the idea with a different but similar-looking word, or by adding a mark that's usually understood to be there but omitted in one of the uses of 'chedy' but not the other, serves this purpose.
Ockham's Razor favors Torsten's idea over mine, no contest. But it's not the only possible explanation.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - bi3mw - 19-09-2019
(19-09-2019, 12:00 AM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..... the scribe seems to have been like, Uh oh, too many repetitions will arouse suspicion. Better add another stroke to one of those words that makes it different from the others! I think this point has merit.....
I think because you can see the corrections, that would be counterproductive. Thus, one would draw attention to the deception especially because people get stuck with (rare) mistakes. It would be best in such a case, to do nothing and hope that the reader just do not notice.
It is more likely that the author has really made mistakes. Especially because repetitions in the VMS are nothing unusual.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Helmut Winkler - 19-09-2019
I'd really like to see a list of alleged corrections in the ms..
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - RenegadeHealer - 19-09-2019
(19-09-2019, 11:23 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think because you can see the corrections, that would be counterproductive. Thus, one would draw attention to the deception especially because people get stuck with (rare) mistakes. It would be best in such a case, to do nothing and hope that the reader just do not notice.
It is more likely that the author has really made mistakes. Especially because repetitions in the VMS are nothing unusual.
To us 21st century netizens with all sorts of digital tools for parsing images and a chronic interest in a captivating ancient mystery, I agree. The addition of deliberate but questionably necessary pen strokes to words is more suspicious, and is much harder to explain with the natural language hypothesis, than a text where every word was clearly left as-is after one attempt. That said, if the VMS is a meaningless hoax, I question how obvious these corrections would have been to the intended mark book's target audience. I can imagine they'd go unnoticed to the vast majority of the books's pre-20th century beholders, who'd at most give the book a casual leaf-through in dim light, before deciding they can't comprehend it and losing interest in it.
Torsten, I have to say, the pattern of corrections you've pointed out leans me a bit in the direction of the cipher hypothesis. Of the major three hypotheses about the VMS's origin and purpose, the cipher hypothesis is the one I've explored the least, but this discussion makes me want to look deeper into it. If this were a cipher that the author wanted to be able to decrypt accurately in the future, it seems reasonable that he'd plan a careful rough draft, check over the final copy for accuracy against his rough draft and/or the encryption device, and fix any errors that would potentially hinder decryption. Were your thoughts swayed in this direction at all?
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - bi3mw - 19-09-2019
(19-09-2019, 05:43 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd really like to see a list of alleged corrections in the ms..You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: [split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections - Torsten - 19-09-2019
(19-09-2019, 05:46 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Torsten, I have to say, the pattern of corrections you've pointed out leans me a bit in the direction of the cipher hypothesis. Of the major three hypotheses about the VMS's origin and purpose, the cipher hypothesis is the one I've explored the least, but this discussion makes me want to look deeper into it. If this were a cipher that the author wanted to be able to decrypt accurately in the future, it seems reasonable that he'd plan a careful rough draft, check over the final copy for accuracy against his rough draft and/or the encryption device, and fix any errors that would potentially hinder decryption. Were your thoughts swayed in this direction at all?
I discuss this idea in my paper from 2015: "More interesting is the hypothesis that the VMS is an encoded book of secrets. One thinkable hypothesis is that only a subset of glyphs has a meaning and the gaps between them are filled up with meaningless content. ..." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 37ff).