+- 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: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? (/thread-3107.html)
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - -JKP- - 23-02-2020
davidjackson Wrote:
Why are you multiplying %red and %quasi by 100? 66 occurrences in a corpus of 6347 is 0.0139%, not 1.04%.
66 out of 6347 is definitely 1.04%.
You can get a close approximation by moving the decimal 2 steps to the left (63.47). So without even doing the math, it's possible to see that 63 is almost the same as 66 (almost 1 to 1), which means it's going to calculate out to about 1% after you move the decimal back to its original position. It's a simple way to do a quick check in your head.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - Koen G - 23-02-2020
I think our forum admin is just more used to thinking of 1% as 0.01 and got momentarily confused
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - ReneZ - 23-02-2020
(22-02-2020, 08:40 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, in a sentence like "The dog dug a hole," dog and dug only differ by one letter, but there's no intent to duplicate and the similarity is coincidental.
This type of coincidental similarity can happen of course, but given that it is coincidental, it is likely to be quite rare. In the Voynich MS it is far from rare - it is one of the features that people have been wondering about for decades now.
It can be a feature of the original text (if there is one), or it can be a feature of the encoding, or more generally text generation.
Reduplication is a known feature in quite a few languages, but quasi-reduplication probably less so.
However, also this exists in Thai, as I may have pointed out in the past.
While exact re-duplication is mostly used to soften a term, quasi-reduplication is used in spoken language in order to make it pleasant-sounding.
'Fun' is 'sanuk'. This is quite often expressed as 'sanuk-sanaan'.
Both can be used together. The word 'ba' (with a falling tone) means 'crazy' and is quite a strong word.
It is softened up by saying ba-ba-bo-bo.
This is written: บ้าๆบอๆ by the way, and the ๆ is a reduplication symbol.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - davidjackson - 23-02-2020
I think the word is D'oh!
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - -JKP- - 23-02-2020
The word "reduplication" is redundant.
If it is written twice, it is duplication. If it is re-duplicated, that could be interpreted as written twice, twice (e.g., daiin daiin, daiin daiin), or some other number more than two.
So daiin daiin is duplication.
Yes, the VMS is full of it.
But we don't really know if it is duplication, except if we define it as such. What is before or after might be modifiers (especially if spaces are not word boundaries). The intention of the words might be different even if they look to us to be the same.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - Koen G - 23-02-2020
JKP, reduplication is a term in linguistics: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Technically it covers partial repetition as well.
Of course we don't know whether Voynichese is language, so our case is not ideal. But I think Marco is using it to stress that the word is repeated immediately rather than, say, a string that is repeated various times throughout the text. But there is nothing wrong with the "re" in reduplication.
From the Wiki: "Reduplication is the standard term for this phenomenon in the linguistics literature. Other terms that are occasionally used include cloning, doubling, duplication, repetition".
I do like "doubling" as a non-language specific term, but reduplication is fine. Although it would probably be more correct to distinguish between exact reduplication and non-exact reduplication, since apparently the general term covers both cases.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - DONJCH - 23-02-2020
(23-02-2020, 11:00 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think our forum admin is just more used to thinking of 1% as 0.01 and got momentarily confused
Yes, the ratio is 0.0104 (not 0.014%, still less 0.0139%, there is a rounding error there too)
The percentage is 1.04%.
There were 3 confusing errors there - the use of %, the rounding and the missing zero before the 4.
Sorry for being pedantic but it was a bit difficult to identify the point being made here at first.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - -JKP- - 23-02-2020
Reduplication is redundant and can carry other meanings such as something that is duplicated and then duplicated again (re-duplicated).
The term duplication is an accepted alternative to the more ambiguous and redundant term "reduplication" and should probably be favored.
When things are done badly, they can be changed, whether they are traditional or not. When I was a child, in my area, flute-players were called "flautists". Eventually musicians started saying, "I don't play the flaut, I play the flute. I am a flutist," and now the accepted term in this part of the world is "flutists". It's a better term.
I like the way Marco has used "quasi-" to distinguish between exact and not-quite-exact duplication, especially since the examples he posted clearly show that the intent is to express the same word. In this instance, I think quasi-duplication is better than just calling it duplication (it's better than the way suggested in the Wiki where it says "reduplication" can also be used for words that are similar). Quasi is better. It is intuitively understandable and makes a clear distinction between similar words and exact-same words.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - Koen G - 23-02-2020
One of the many meanings of "re-" is "behind or after". Se You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I believe that is why linguists prefer the term "reduplication" to describe this phenomenon.
This is not just wiki-nonsense, it's generally accepted terminology: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related? - -JKP- - 23-02-2020
I didn't see it as Wiki-Nonsense, just unclear use of terminology. Even professional musicians used to use the word "flautist" and now have changed over to flutist.
I won't argue it further. I've given my opinion. Saying duplication or proximate duplication or adjacent duplication (or any other appropriate phrase) gets the point across very well without the confusion caused by unclear redundant jargon such as "reduplication". Jargon is sometimes necessary if there are no regular words to describe a concept (terms in mathematics are a good example of this), but jargon is not in every case better than straightforward description.
I'll support Marco's use of quasi. It's much better than using "reduplication" as a catchall term (as per the Wiki) to describe both duplication and quasi-duplication.