The Voynich Ninja
[Article] Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Printable Version

+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Article] Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript (/thread-2808.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Torsten - 21-06-2019

(21-06-2019, 07:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(21-06-2019, 02:49 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....  I find your paper's failure to cite both his work on the subject and his proposed explanations quite incomprehensible, sorry. :-(

I have to disagree with this. The footnote is fully appropriate in my opinion.

Currier's work in general is amply cited in the paper. His specific opinion on the relation between word ends and word starts is strictly related to one part of the MS, namely the Biological pages. He presents the stats. He then says that he cannot think of any linguistic explanation.

I agree with Nick that this is indeed a mistake. Currier argues that the beginning of a word is related to the suffix of a previous word and that natural language doesn't behave this way. Also Emma and Marco come to the conclusion "that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first." (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15). An example for natural language given in the paper is that the "preceding vowel before a word starting with a vowel is a common phenomenon" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15) and the authors argue that "Glyphs at the start and end of words could be nulls intended to obscure the underlying text" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18). There is no doubt that Currier's argumentation is highly relevant.

Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it? 

Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?

Much more can be said about consecutive words in the Voynich manuscript. For instance Dr. Vladimir Sazonov has published an analysis of word dependency in 2003 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Sazonov result was that the number of times consecutive words start with the same initial glyphs or end with the same final glyphs is significant. His table 1. "Initial-Initial dependency" and table 3 "Final-Final dependency" show that "the words very often reproduce the same form (the same initial or the same final) in the next word. For example, -aiin or qo- or -dy can repeat many times with good density" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Another observation was published by Elmar Vogt in 2012: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". Vogt demonstrates that the first word of a line is longer than average and the second word is shorter than average (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). ...

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Emma May Smith - 21-06-2019

(21-06-2019, 02:49 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did you know that Prescott Currier got "an A.B. in Romance Languages at George Washington University, and a Diploma in Comparative Philology at the University of London"? He was also a wartime codebreaker, so there was a lifetime of both linguistic and codebreaking skills behind his opinions.

As such, I would expect he fulfils all the criteria you could possibly have for someone able to put forward a valid opinion on this kind of phenomenon. So I find your paper's failure to cite both his work on the subject and his proposed explanations quite incomprehensible, sorry. :-(

I don't think "digits" falls even remotely under point 4, again sorry.

Hi Nick, Prescott Currier's qualifications and background are not the issue in contention, his statements are. I stand by what I said, "I don't consider his conclusions to be useful: he gives no solid reasons for his conclusions against linguistic arguments and doesn't expand on his suggestions enough to let others explore them." Currier's total statement on possible causes of this phenomenon is no more that 58 words long.

Any response to Currier's conclusions would either be:
  1. The reasons why Currier came to his conclusions are not stated, and therefore it is not possible to evaluate them.
  2. We assume the reasons he came to his conclusions and argue against our assumptions, even though the assumptions could be wrong.
Neither of these would have been useful.

I would be happy, were you to expand on Currier's conclusions, to respond specifically to your interpretations. I have no fear of discussing any valid point, but it is impossible to discuss something which simply isn't there. I assume, by you dismissal of point 4 as an explanation, you have a clear idea of what Currier was thinking.

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Emma May Smith - 22-06-2019

Hello Torsten, you've made a lot of points here, so I'll try to respond to them individually to avoid confusion.

(21-06-2019, 10:18 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Currier argues that the beginning of a word is related to the suffix of a previous word and that natural language doesn't behave this way.

So, Currier says, "In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next." This is a bizarre statement to make, given that English does just this: a pear and an apple. It's facilely easy to disprove.

Quote:Also Emma and Marco come to the conclusion "that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first." (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15).

You missed out the word "tentatively" before your quote. We're aware that the picture is complex.

Quote:An example for natural language given in the paper is that the "preceding vowel before a word starting with a vowel is a common phenomenon" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15)

Again, you missed out the words "in Italian" after your quote. It is an example only.

Quote:and the authors argue that "Glyphs at the start and end of words could be nulls intended to obscure the underlying text" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18).

We argue against this. The reason why we dismiss this idea is that such nulls would have to be applied regularly therefore having no value in obscuring the underlying text.

Quote:Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?

I don't understand your point. Our paper is discussing the relationships between glyphs, not words.

Quote:Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?

This is a fair point, but I think you're being very harsh that it constitutes a "mystery". Word break combinations in the Voynich text are rather more predictable than in Latin and English, and a bit more predictable than in Italian. Yet the differences between Latin and English on one hand, and Italian on the other, demonstrate that there is no simple level of predictably which describes a natural language. The conclusion at the end of the manuscript comes from dismissing other potential causes of word break combinations and accepting a linguistic one. It's a summary of all the evidence and arguments, not only predictability.

Quote:Much more can be said about consecutive words in the Voynich manuscript.

Undoubtedly.

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Torsten - 22-06-2019

(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, Currier says, "In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next." This is a bizarre statement to make, given that English does just this: a pear and an apple. It's facilely easy to disprove.

To disprove Currier you would need an example like "an apear and an apple".

(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?

I don't understand your point. Our paper is discussing the relationships between glyphs, not words.

You are using a magnifying glass and what you see is a yellow spot. Then you argue that maybe the wall is yellow, or maybe there are some yellow squares, or maybe it is a large painting of Salvador Dalhi.

(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?

This is a fair point, but I think you're being very harsh that it constitutes a "mystery". Word break combinations in the Voynich text are rather more predictable than in Latin and English, and a bit more predictable than in Italian. Yet the differences between Latin and English on one hand, and Italian on the other, demonstrate that there is no simple level of predictably which describes a natural language. The conclusion at the end of the manuscript comes from dismissing other potential causes of word break combinations and accepting a linguistic one. It's a summary of all the evidence and arguments, not only predictability.

There are relevant differences between Currier A and B. With other words your discussion part is based on a single observation and this observation is not consistent for the whole text.

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Emma May Smith - 22-06-2019

(22-06-2019, 07:42 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, Currier says, "In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next." This is a bizarre statement to make, given that English does just this: a pear and an apple. It's facilely easy to disprove.



To disprove Currier you would need an example like "an apear and an apple".

See our paper, page 19, where we talk about initial consonant mutations in Welsh (they're present in other Celtic languages too.)

Quote:
(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?



I don't understand your point. Our paper is discussing the relationships between glyphs, not words.



You are using a magnifying glass and what you see is a yellow spot. Then you argue that maybe the wall is yellow, or maybe there are some yellow squares, or maybe it is a large painting of Salvador Dalhi.

Yes, this is inductive reasoning. We move from the specific to the general. We're using observations on specific aspects of the text to construct a more general theory of the whole. This is a single paper, however, and provides only evidence and support, not a complete theory and its proof.


Quote:
(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?



This is a fair point, but I think you're being very harsh that it constitutes a "mystery". Word break combinations in the Voynich text are rather more predictable than in Latin and English, and a bit more predictable than in Italian. Yet the differences between Latin and English on one hand, and Italian on the other, demonstrate that there is no simple level of predictably which describes a natural language. The conclusion at the end of the manuscript comes from dismissing other potential causes of word break combinations and accepting a linguistic one. It's a summary of all the evidence and arguments, not only predictability.



There are relevant differences between Currier A and B. With other words your discussion part is based on a single observation and this observation is not consistent for the whole text.

We try to explore our observations in a couple of different ways, to check how strong and consistent they are. We acknowledge they're not always as strong or consistent as we would like. We note some exceptions, such as the difference between Currier A and B, and the position of [l]. Our conclusions are not a solution but rather a summary of our research on the topic. We try to point toward the best explanation we can.

I would be happy to listen to arguments why a different explanation is better. But we must explain word break combinations. They are real phenomena and any theory which doesn't account for them must be wrong. Even a tentative explanation is better than complete ignorance.

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Torsten - 22-06-2019

(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(22-06-2019, 07:42 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To disprove Currier you would need an example like "an apear and an apple".
See our paper, page 19, where we talk about initial consonant mutations in Welsh (they're present in other Celtic languages too.)

This is indeed an interesting example. Dr. V. Sazonov has also given an example for Arabic: "The phonetical dependency is very often in arabic: for example the initial particle 'AL' changes itself depending on a final of the previous word" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). So if you think that the VMS-text represents natural language it is maybe worth to investigate Celtic languages and Arabic further. 

For the VMS "these phenomena are consistent, statistically significant, and hold true throughout those areas of text where they are found." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Is this also the case for Welsh and Arabic?

(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:You are using a magnifying glass and what you see is a yellow spot. Then you argue that maybe the wall is yellow, or maybe there are some yellow squares, or maybe it is a large painting of Salvador Dalhi.

Yes, this is inductive reasoning. We move from the specific to the general. We're using observations on specific aspects of the text to construct a more general theory of the whole. This is a single paper, however, and provides only evidence and support, not a complete theory and its proof.

Do you believe that you have enough data to construct a more general theory? 

Would you argue that <qo...> is the same as <o...>? See the following word counts for the whole VMS.  How do you explain that if the <o...> variant is rare also the <qo...> variant is rarely used?

odaiin (60) qodaiin (42) qokaiin (262) okaiin (212) otaiin (154) qotaiin (79)
odain  (18) qodain  (11) qokain  (279) okain  (144) otain  ( 96) qotain  (64)
odan   ( 2) qodan   ( 2) qokan   (  8) okan   (  5) otan   (  5) qotan   ( 2) 
odal   (13) qodal   ( 7) qokal   (191) okal   (138) otal   (143) qotal   (59) 
odam   ( 6) qodam   ( 3) qokam   ( 25) okam   ( 26) otam   ( 47) qotam   (12) 
odor   ( 8) qodor   ( 2) qokor   ( 36) okor   ( 34) otor   ( 46) qotor   (29) 
odol   ( 2) qodol   ( 1) qokol   (104) okol   ( 82) otol   ( 86) qotol   (47)

(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:There are relevant differences between Currier A and B. With other words your discussion part is based on a single observation and this observation is not consistent for the whole text.

We try to explore our observations in a couple of different ways, to check how strong and consistent they are. We acknowledge they're not always as strong or consistent as we would like. We note some exceptions, such as the difference between Currier A and B, and the position of [l]. Our conclusions are not a solution but rather a summary of our research on the topic. We try to point toward the best explanation we can.

Your blog is full of posts about interesting observations. But you have picked this observation for your paper. Would you also argue that "Line Start Patterns" point to a natural language (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)?

(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be happy to listen to arguments why a different explanation is better. But we must explain word break combinations. They are real phenomena and any theory which doesn't account for them must be wrong. Even a tentative explanation is better than complete ignorance.

My answer is that it is just another example of local repetition. If the the self-citation method was used to generate the text it was only possible to copy an element of a word already written. Therefore it expected that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first. There is no contradiction between your paper and the self-citation method.

We argue that "the shape of a glyph must be compatible with the shape of the previous one and is also influenced by its position within a word or a line." (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10).  Did you note that one outcome of your Charts 4.1. and 4.2. is that similar glyphs are related to each other? How do you explain that <ch> behaves like <sh>, <a> like <y>, <r> like <s>, <m> like <n>, and <o> like <y>?

See also Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10: "It even happens that the first glyph of a word is suggested by the last glyph of the previous word (Currier 1976): “‘Words’ ending in the <y> sort of symbol, which is very frequent, are followed about four times as often by ‘words’ beginning with <qo>.” This feature explains why the prefix <qo> becomes more frequent at the same time as words similar to <chedy> are used more frequently."

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - MarcoP - 23-06-2019

Hi Torsten,
thank you for your comments.
Here are a few personal opinions, for what they are worth.

(22-06-2019, 07:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be happy to listen to arguments why a different explanation is better. But we must explain word break combinations. They are real phenomena and any theory which doesn't account for them must be wrong. Even a tentative explanation is better than complete ignorance.

My answer is that it is just another example of local repetition. If the the self-citation method was used to generate the text it was only possible to copy an element of a word already written. Therefore it [is] expected that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first. There is no contradiction between your paper and the self-citation method.

I am quite sure that a procedural method can reproduce any statistical feature of Voynichese (or of any other text). Also, I believe that only a complete and satisfactory decoding / translation can disprove the idea that the text is meaningless: hence, I think it is possible that the text was procedurally generated with something like the method you describe.


I don't understand why self-citation should cause the initial glyph of one word to depend on the final glyph of the previous word. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the generated text You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't feature any clear dependency between the last glyph of a word and the first glyph of the next word? For instance, the most frequent combination -l.c- occurs 705 times, nearly identical to the expected 693.
Even if this is the case, I guess that, if you wanted to, you could soon push to github a new version of your software that exhibits this behaviour.

But the fact that biased word-break combinations can be observed in written texts in several languages seems significant to me. It is suggestive of the fact that Voynichese is phonetic (i.e. glyphs correspond to sounds). From the few examples we discuss in the paper, when biased combinations are less marked, they can be due to frequent word combinations, but when they are extensive, they are the result of words being altered by an immediately adjacent word.

Another feature that points to a phonetic explanation is that occurrences of the same character across word boundaries (e.g. -d.d- -l.l-) are avoided (this is mentioned in the paper, but see also You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). From what I understand, languages tend to avoid the consecutive repetition of the same sound: actually they tend to promote the highest possible difference between consecutive sounds. Again, the observation is compatible with basic phonetic principles.

Finally (also discussed in our paper) most of the combinations that are frequent across words are also frequent "inside" words. The two sets of data largely confirm the tentative classification in vowels-consonants discussed by Jacques Guy (as well as Rene's HMM analysis). VC / CV alternation is also preferred across word boundaries in written natural languages.

Even if all these points mean what Emma and I think they mean, and Voynichese is phonetic, it could still be meaningless, something like glossolalia. In your paper you mention aesthetic choices by the scribe as visual choices, but they could be phonetic choices instead: meaningless words that sound good, rather than meaningless words that look good.
But I prefer to think that they are meaningful words that sound good (i.e. that follow euphonic preferences, like vowel-sound alternation).

(22-06-2019, 07:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We argue that "the shape of a glyph must be compatible with the shape of the previous one and is also influenced by its position within a word or a line." (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10).  Did you note that one outcome of your Charts 4.1. and 4.2. is that similar glyphs are related to each other? How do you explain that <ch> behaves like <sh>, <a> like <y>, <r> like <s>, <m> like <n>, and <o> like <y>?

As you probably know, many European medieval scripts shared the two features you mention:
  • "the shape of a glyph must be compatible with the shape of the previous one": 2-shaped 'r' is used after "round-letters" (e.g. "cornibus" "procellis"); v-shaped 'r' is used after straight letters (e.g. "terre" "aquarum")
  • "the shape of a glyph is influenced by its position within a word or a line": round-s appears at the end of words ("procellis" "bellis"); long-s appears inside words ("Bestie" "pestilentia")
[Image: bMS3b9M.png]
(examples from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

In your paper you write that (in the VMS) "the scribe also used aesthetically motivated design rules for glyph selection". The examples above illustrate that most medieval scribes did that. Clearly, in the VMS these things could be much more pronounced, but here we are dealing with what seems to be a newly invented alphabet, so more freedom was possible.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. mentioned above "the theory that [the VMS] was written by a European in a foreign language who decided to create their own phonetic alphabet." I believe there is plenty of evidence that the alphabet was invented by a European scribe, who used a repertoire of shapes that he was familiar with. In the context of a phonetic interpretation, the fact that similar glyphs behave similarly could be explained as a conscious choice by the scribe, who assigned similar glyphs to similar sounds.

Something similar happened in Giovanni Fontana's cipher alphabet (dating to the same period as the VMS): he deliberately used a uniform scheme to represent the five vowels. This fits particularly well with the similar behaviour and similar look of Voynich 'o','a','y'.
Emma has also discussed the possible You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: this could be a case of positional variants similar to the round-s / long-s discussed above.

Of course, my reply to your question can only be tentative, but the possibility that the Voynich alphabet was created on the basis of aesthetic and phonetic principles seems worth considering. I am sure that the idea is not new.

(22-06-2019, 07:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.See also Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10: "It even happens that the first glyph of a word is suggested by the last glyph of the previous word (Currier 1976): “‘Words’ ending in the <y> sort of symbol, which is very frequent, are followed about four times as often by ‘words’ beginning with <qo>.” This feature explains why the prefix <qo> becomes more frequent at the same time as words similar to <chedy> are used more frequently."

I agree that the correlation between qo- and chedy looks significant. It can well be that the presence of qo- is caused by that of chedy. The nature of this relationship remains to be defined: it could be that it is a random, meaningless "suggestion" as you say, or it could be that there is an underlying linguistic phenomenon, or it could be an artefact of some kind of cipher which I am totally unable to imagine. The only way to understand more of what is happening is collecting more data.

Some other slightly OT thoughts:

Something I particularly like about your approach is that you take reduplication and quasi-reduplication seriously. You have created a system that nicely models them. Of course, the amount of reduplication is a major obstacle for all attempts to find meaning in the text, cipher systems included. Koen's experiments with Token-Type-Ratio (TTR) measures, as well as Nablator's work inspired by your line-distance / string-distance graphs, are suggestive of how greatly texts can vary also in the context of a single language: this gives me hope that reduplication rates similar to those in the VMS can exist somewhere, maybe in some weird text in some weird language. But this is just wishful thinking, for the time being. I don't think I have seen any other take on reduplication as well developed as what you did.

But my preference goes to Emma's efforts to look for more and more patterns. The cross and delight of your approach is that your research is more or less over: you have come to a model that you are satisfied with, you are "convinced that the hoax hypothesis can be the only correct interpretation of the VMS". My feeling is that there is much more to be discovered about Voynichese, so I am happy to keep searching, even if it is a slow and difficult process.
The kind of language variability I mentioned above also makes it difficult to search for close parallels for specific phenomena. Even word-break correlations can be represented differently in different sources written in one language: it is one of those areas in which properties of the writing system are entangled with properties of the language. Checking Arabic or Welsh is more difficult than running a piece of software on a single text: one risks to waste a lot of time in "trial and error" attempts that don't lead anywhere. I am confident that Emma's approach of accurately examining each small feature, trying to add more and more details, can only add to our knowledge of the manuscript. In the end, if all goes well, it should allow to identify candidate languages, and then it should be relatively easy to see if some meaning can be found or not.

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Torsten - 24-06-2019

Hi Marco,

 your answer contains many different arguments, ideas and what you believe. Therefore I will split my answer into two parts. In this post I will answer to the points concerning natural language. In a second post I will answer the points concerning the self-citation method.

It seems that you believe that if you want to demonstrate that the VMS represents language it is only necessary to point to a feature shared by the VMS-text and a language. But not every thing with some wheels is a cart and not every being with two legs is a duck. With other words you can't cherry pick the features you want to compare.

It is therefore problematic that your paper does not address known counter arguments to the natural language hypothesis. Moreover you come yourself to the conclusion that "the second glyph in a combination depends on the first". You don't address the objection of Currier that it is typical for natural languages that the suffix of a word depends on the beginning of the next word. This means that you present in fact a counter argument against the natural language hypothesis without discussing this point.

Another point is that the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). In my eyes it is relevant that this observation is not consistent for the whole text. You also argue that such differences are relevant in your eyes: "There would need to be a separate cause for the increase in the number of words beginning with [o] and an additional process to bring them into the combination [n.o]" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). The paper only uses this difference to argue against the idea that the "arrangement of whole words creates certain word-break combinations" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But how do you explain the differences between Currier A and B within the natural language hypothesis?

You say that you prefer to believe that the VMS contains meaningful words. It will not surprise you that such a statement does not convince me.

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - MarcoP - 24-06-2019

(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems that you believe that if you want to demonstrate that the VMS represents language it is only necessary to point to a feature shared by the VMS-text and a language. But not every thing with some wheels is a cart and not every being with two legs is a duck. With other words you can't cherry pick the features you want to compare. It is therefore problematic that your paper does not address known counter arguments to the natural language hypothesis.

Hi Torsten,
thank you for your reply!
I believe that to demonstrate that the VMS represents language one must provide a reliable translation. We are anywhere close to anything like that. Exploring features one by one makes things more manageable in my eyes, but of course until all features are explained together, it is not possible to speak of a "solution" (linguistic or otherwise).
We are not in a position to refute the idea that the manuscript is non-linguistic and we don't claim to be. We mention the idea that the manuscript could be meaningless. We discuss how some aspects word-break combinations have parallels in linguistic phenomena.

(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Moreover you come yourself to the conclusion that "the second glyph in a combination depends on the first". You don't address the objection of Currier that it is typical for natural languages that the suffix of a word depends on the beginning of the next word. This means that you present in fact a counter argument against the natural language hypothesis without discussing this point.

I don't think it is correct to say that we came to a "conclusion" about the direction of the influence between the two sides of a combination. We wrote:
Quote:We can thus only tentatively say that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first.
Even if this hypothesis seems to us the best explanation for the observations, an influence in the other direction is also possible. It could also be that different causes concur to the phenomenon. It would be great to be in the position to make a stronger statement, but we are not. So, no "conclusion" yet.

Edit: I see it's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. you turn this very sentence into something different from what we said. The reason why you keep doing so escapes me.

I also want to point out that what Currier said is: "I can think of no linguistic explanation for this sort of phenomenon, not if we are dealing with words or phrases, or the syntax of a language where suffixes are present. In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next word." 
I cannot make sense of this sentence. Emma already mentioned that the English article a/an is an obvious counterexample. Italian is a counterexample as a language making use of suffixes which are altered on the  basis of the beginning of the next word.

Your statement that "the suffix of a word depends on the beginning of the next word" is true for Italian and the English article a/an, but it is not true for all languages. For instance, in our paper, we mention initial consonant mutation in Welsh:

Quote:An example is the definite article y which causes the soft mutation: merch (‘daughter’) becomes y ferch, and draig (‘dragon’) becomes y ddraig.

(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another point is that the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). In my eyes it is relevant that this observation is not consistent for the whole text. You also argue that such differences are relevant in your eyes: "There would need to be a separate cause for the increase in the number of words beginning with [o] and an additional process to bring them into the combination [n.o]" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But you only use this difference to argue against the idea that the "arrangement of whole words creates certain word-break combinations" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But how do you explain this observation for the natural language hypothesis?

As I said above, my idea is that the author or authors modified (possibly "improved", at least in their eyes) their writing system during the  creation of the manuscript. I know this is not much of an explanation, but given the "continuous" drift from A to B I find it hard to think of something very different from what yourself propose.

In the case of the '[n.o]' combination, this could mean (for example) that in Currier B the author was more accurate in representing an euphonich prefix that was not represented in Currier A. As I said above, how phonetic alterations are represented in the written form is highly variable. For instance the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is audible but has no impact on the written language: the author could have gradually introduced the written representation of some vaguely similar word-boundary phenomenon.

(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You say that you prefer to believe that the VMS contains meaningful words. It will not surprise you that such a statement does not convince me.

Ah ah ah, no, it doesn't surprise me.
I know you are as happy with your certainties as I am with my doubts Smile

RE: Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript - Torsten - 24-06-2019

You argue that the results in your paper are not final and everything is open to further discussion. You even say "We are not in a position to refute the idea that the manuscript is non-linguistic and we don't claim to be." So what do you want to say you’ve done?