+- 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: Usefulness of categorizing words based on occurances in different parts of the MS? (/thread-2801.html)
RE: Usefulness of categorizing words based on occurances in different parts of the MS? - -JKP- - 31-05-2019
Since a picture is worth 1,000 words, here is a summary pic of what part of my Concordance looks like for one specific glyph-combination (this does not include the info in the 1100+-page document and there are other views that are not included in the pic):
![[Image: SampleTokenData.png]](https://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SampleTokenData.png)
Yes, I know, small and blurry. My apologies... I guess I'm not quite ready to give up data that took me y e a r s to assemble (and from which I'm still trying to salvage what I can).
The concordance maps every VMS token (yep, every one). It produces statistics and graphs on the length of the token, where it occurs, how frequently it occurs on a specific folio, and which glyph-groups precede and follow it if it also occurs as part of a longer token. There are breakdowns of specific sections, such as individual pool pages, cosmo pages, individual large-plants, and each individual rotum on the "map" folio.
What I expected to see (patterns of relationships or similarity) simply aren't there in any linguistic sense or even in any token-group sense that I can see.
I would never discourage someone from trying to go down the same path, maybe they'll see something I'm overlooking, but I mention all of this mainly because I suspect the answer lies in a different path.
RE: Usefulness of categorizing words based on occurances in different parts of the MS? - Anton - 01-06-2019
(31-05-2019, 07:24 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These "several parts" are defined by presumed similarity of content. The spatial criteria proposed are semantic criteria.
They are grouped because the folios look in the similar fashion. That's a look-based division. Some folios have plants depicted, some have zodiac charts, some have dense text paragraphs marked with stars etc. This of course strongly suggests similarity of content, but the latter follows from the former, it's not postulated in advance.
Of course, a researcher can divide the folio space in any other fashion deemed more appropriate.
RE: Usefulness of categorizing words based on occurances in different parts of the MS? - Davidsch - 03-06-2019
The patterns have been well examined. It is not what you see that is interesting. The conclusions and logical explanations form the real discovery.
RE: Usefulness of categorizing words based on occurances in different parts of the MS? - joben - 03-06-2019
Thanks JKP, I think a lot of your observations is making more and more sense to me as I try to learn more. I have also started looking at the MS itself rather than the EVA transcription.
I agree that it's necessarily not words with spaces we are looking at, because something weird is going on with the positions of certain "words", the "word" lengths, etc.
The longest "word" is 10 letters, right? I am not a linguist, but is it really that common with languages which lacks longer words than 10 letters?
And what about punctuation? Is there like a "capital" letter that tend to appear right after where it looks like a sentence is finished?
RE: Usefulness of categorizing words based on occurances in different parts of the MS? - -JKP- - 03-06-2019
Punctuation was not a big priority in medieval times. They had it but not every scribe used it (or used it consistently). Periods and capital letters were often sparse or lacking.
Even in the 19th century some people didn't use punctuation.