+- 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: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? (/thread-2905.html)
Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - radapox - 24-08-2019
Hi there, Voynichers. First, let me introduce myself: I'm a guy from the Netherlands with a background in linguistics, a general interest in anything to do with language(s) and writing systems, and a tendency to construct the latter myself. I've been a lurker here for some time, a follower of Nick Pelling's and René Zandbergen's sites for quite a bit longer, and generally intrigued by the VM for much of my conscious existence, although I've never done anything serious with it and I don't know what the heck a "Neal key" is even after having read You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. ;)
Regarding the VM text, I suppose I'm largely on the side of most members here: I don't think any of the "solutions" to the text offered thus far have been of much use whatsoever (this is the polite version of my true feelings as a linguist), but I wouldn't dare claiming I have a better clue myself. Safe to say that my cryptology skills don't go nearly as far as my fascination with it.
That said, I've recently been thinking about an idea, and was wondering if you would happen to know if this has ever been considered before (cue Yes it has, you utter noob, leave this to the big kids) or even sounds remotely plausible. I came up with it because some of my conscripts/langs/thingies work on the same basic principle, which you could call a "relative code": i.e., the meaning of a linguistic unit (character, word, whatever) is not determined by its "absolute" value, but by its difference in value with adjacent units.
A simple example to illustrate the principle. Say you want to encipher the word BOOK. To do this, you note the numeric positions of each letter in the alphabet (2-15-15-11), which you then use as steps to be taken forward through the alphabet for each subsequent letter (starting back at the beginning when you get past 26) to get your ciphertext. You need to choose a starting point beforehand; say the letter A. Then, to encipher the first letter of your plaintext (B), you add the value of that letter (2) to the value of your chosen starting letter (A = 1), which in our example gives you 3, which corresponds to C. The C is then taken as the starting point for the next letter, and so on for each step:
A + B = 1 + 2 = 3 = C
C + O = 3 + 15 = 18 = R
R + O = 18 + 15 = 33(mod26) = 7 = G
G + K = 7 + 11 = 18 = R
The plaintext BOOK is thus enciphered as CRGR. Note how the same plaintext character can end up as different ciphertext characters (the first O has become an R; the second one a G), and vice versa (the first O and the K are both enciphered as R).
Should we want to decipher the message CRGR, we must calculate the differences (in terms of numeric value) between each subsequent pair of letters; hence the term "relative code." Counting backwards from the end of the ciphertext, the "difference" between R and G is K, the difference between G and R is O; the difference between R and C is O again; and the difference between C and the letter you chose as your starting point (A) is B. There we are, back at BOOK.
Now this is of course a very simple example, and I'm not expecting the VM text to do anything as straightforward as this or we'd have found out long ago--at least on a letter-by-letter basis. However, could it be the case that something akin to this principle is going on between certain subsequent words (or even larger units)? The fact that so many passages consist of similar-but-not-quite-similar words (pdsheody shdol shey otchdy dshedy soeeedy dchefoey sair shedy sodair) makes me wonder if it would make sense to look at the differences between adjacent words rather than at their surface forms. I.e., not look at otchdy dshedy per se, but at the operations necessary to get from otchdy to dshedy--whatever those operations may be.
Whew. This took more writing than I expected; sorry for that and thanks for bearing with me (assuming you did). Does this make any sense whatsoever, or have I fallen into the most ridiculous trap imaginable? Has this principle been considered before? I'm genuinely curious what you gals 'n' guys think of my idea, and I promise I won't get offended if you burn it to the ground where it belongs. ;)
Thanks a bunch for your consideration, and keep up the great work on the narrow road of sanity!
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - Torsten - 24-08-2019
Hello radapox!
It is indeed interesting to analyze the relations between words in the VMS. If an edge indicates that two words differ by just one glyph the words in the VMS would build one You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Within this network 5 steps are needed to get from otchdy to dshedy:
otchdy - tchdy - chdy - shdy - dshdy - dshedy
otchdy - otshdy - tshdy - shdy - dshdy - dshedy
otchdy - otchedy - tchedy - chedy - shedy - dshedy
otchdy - tchdy - chdy - dchdy - dchedy - dshedy
otchdy - ochdy - chdy - shdy - shedy - dshedy
...
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - radapox - 24-08-2019
@ Torsten: Fascinating! I'm going to have a look at that, thanks!
(EDIT: Guess my noobness is showing already. How do I make clear to which post I'm responding without having to quote it? EDITING THE EDIT: Got it, thanks y'all.)
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - Anton - 24-08-2019
This is called differential encoding, and I think we discussed that, application to characters, in the "why the VMS is a cipher" thread.
Applied to vords, the first question would be what to do with labels.
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - davidjackson - 24-08-2019
(24-08-2019, 08:29 PM)radapox Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(EDIT: Guess my noobness is showing already. How do I make clear to which post I'm responding without having to quote it?)@Radapox - just mention the posters name, ie, @Torsten.
@Anton - off the top of my head, could it be possible that instead of vords or glyphs being the encoding basis, it's the syllables?
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - Linda - 24-08-2019
Hi radapox, welcome!
I think the idea you outline is interesting and may spark some discussion about different versions of that sort of thing to consider and test.
btw to answer your question in post 3, each post has a number you can refer to top right, if the poster has left more than one message since you last checked.
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - -JKP- - 24-08-2019
Radapox, you can always delete the parts of the quoted passage that are not relevant (with some indication that it's an excerpt, like ellipses or text to say it's deleted).
And welcome.
I especially like this kind of thinking (expressed in your first post) in relation to the VMS because the knee-jerk reaction of most of the "solvers" seems to be to assume it's a simple substitution cipher even though the letter positions and frequency are not consistent with natural language (as they stand).
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - radapox - 24-08-2019
(24-08-2019, 09:16 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is called differential encoding, and I think we discussed that, application to characters, in the "why the VMS is a cipher" thread.
Ah, see, that I didn't know. Thanks!
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - radapox - 24-08-2019
(24-08-2019, 09:47 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I especially like this kind of thinking (expressed in your first post) in relation to the VMS because the knee-jerk reaction of most of the "solvers" seems to be to assume it's a simple substitution cipher even though the letter positions and frequency are not consistent with natural language (as they stand).
That's kind of you to say. Dear me, no, I wouldn't dare to claim being anything even close to a would-be "solver"; just wanted to pick your brains on this particular pair of cents. Glad to hear the notion isn't entirely silly, and highly interesting to learn what has been done in this regard already.
RE: Look at *differences* between words rather than at the words themselves? - Anton - 24-08-2019
(24-08-2019, 09:20 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Anton - off the top of my head, could it be possible that instead of vords or glyphs being the encoding basis, it's the syllables?
That's possible, I think, but not through some straightforward procedure. Because the character stats suggest that instead of reducing redundancy in the flow of text, it was increased.
From historical point of view, though, I don't know if in early XV c. someone would think in terms of syllables.
Quote:@Radapox - just mention the posters name, ie, @Torsten.
As a side note, I think there was a respective plugin out there.