+- 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] Verbose cipher? (/thread-3356.html)
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - MarcoP - 20-05-2022
(20-05-2022, 07:24 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(19-05-2022, 06:31 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think that treating space as a character is anachronistic.
What do you mean by this, Marco? Does it also mean that they were unlikely to introduce extra spaces?
Hi Koen,
I'll try to clarify, but please remember that I don't know much about cryptography, so it is possible I am totally wrong.
What I mean is that we see space as a character, since it's just one of the keys on our keyboards. This was not the case for medieval scribes.
For instance, this simple substitution does not look plausibly "medieval" to me (here _ represents space):
Code:
plain-text: THIS_IS_UNLIKELY
cipherText: ar_qo_qokey_alyshere plain-text _ is cyphered as 'o', and plain-text 'I' is ciphered as '_'.
(20-05-2022, 07:24 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Does it also mean that they were unlikely to introduce extra spaces?
Spaces were removed in early XV century diplomatic cyphers and extra spaces where used in late XV Century ciphers (e.g. Trithemius), so I think that null spaces could be more acceptable.
I don't think we can exclude anything, but my personal ranking of decreasing preference is:
- Spaces represent actual spaces; one of the reasons is that average word length is approximately correct, so the frequency of spaces is comparable with that of a "normal" plain-text. Of course, this assumption has a number of problems for a cipher or phonetic writing system (e.g. the binomial distribution of word-type lengths). This idea is compatible with options like an artificial language or a cipher based on a nomenclator.
- Spaces are nulls; here a problem could be that null spaces are not documented before the end of the XV Century (not totally sure).
- The text is a cipher and spaces carry some information that is different from the usual separation of words (see example above).
(20-05-2022, 07:24 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It feels to me like keeping space as a character in entropy calculations is a way to include word boundaries. E.g. the fact that "y" is often at the end of the word is a useful statistic that can be included.
I see no problem in keeping space in entropy calculations, as long as it is done consistently. This certainly is an important variable for entropy measures. The other two options are removing all spaces or only considering bigrams that are entirely contained "inside" words (i.e. excluding bigrams that contain space). All these options are legitimate, in my opinion.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Koen G - 20-05-2022
Thanks, Marco, I understand what you mean and I agree. We can see space as something similar to any other character, but the same view would not have been possible in the Middle Ages. I would hypothesize that perhaps the spread of the printing press may have been a first push towards seeing space as a character. For example, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. writes that "When typesetting, a printer has to think about negative space as something tangible." I think that the space would not have been something tangible in the manuscript age.
One option I think is missing from your overview is that the VM plays around with the room left between certain glyphs or glyph combinations. Sometimes there is a small space, sometimes a big one, sometimes it's confusing. So what about a scenario where they are converting their plaintext to Voynichese, and for some reason leave more space after certain glyphs independent of whether or not they were at the end of the word?
I'll quickly come up with a concrete example. Say that for some reason they assigned plaintext "o" to EVA-y. Now, EVA-y is a glyph with a "swoop", so it feels "end of word" to the scribe, so they leave a space. Like that, the scribe introduces a verbose system where [o] is turned into [y_], without actually having the mental concept of space as a character.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - MarcoP - 20-05-2022
(20-05-2022, 11:48 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'll quickly come up with a concrete example. Say that for some reason they assigned plaintext "o" to EVA-y. Now, EVA-y is a glyph with a "swoop", so it feels "end of word" to the scribe, so they leave a space. Like that, the scribe introduces a verbose system where [o] is turned into [y_], without actually having the mental concept of space as a character.
I am not sure I understand. If the space after 'y' is not significant, it can be ignored, it is in fact a null; if _ does not add any information to that encoded by 'y', the cipher is not verbose.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Koen G - 20-05-2022
Ah right, I mixed two things there, the space indeed wouldn't be part of the verbose cipher.
What I'm getting at is that it is possible that extra spaces are introduced in a somewhat systematic manner without the scribe actually thinking of the space as a "null" character. But the effect for us would be that these spaces are nulls, so this is included in your list.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Aga Tentakulus - 20-05-2022
Actually, I don't understand the thinking, and the theory.
If "EVA y" = "9" and it is considered "zero or blank", how can such a position be explained.
And if "EVA y" can stand where alone at the connection "8y", then it is only "8" with two blanks.
None of this makes sense to me. Since for me the "EVA y" does exactly what it is supposed to do. ( Various possibilities open )
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - cvetkakocj@rogers.com - 20-05-2022
(20-05-2022, 02:26 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually, I don't understand the thinking, and the theory.
If "EVA y" = "9" and it is considered "zero or blank", how can such a position be explained.
And if "EVA y" can stand where alone at the connection "8y", then it is only "8" with two blanks.
None of this makes sense to me. Since for me the "EVA y" does exactly what it is supposed to do. ( Various possibilities open )
I believe the EVA is right on in transcribing the 9-like glyph as Y, although it was widely used in Latin medieval scripts as Latin abbreviation con or us. In my research, I found that the Latin ending -us to -i, was gradually changing to i (like Gregory instead of Gregorius) and eventually the Y was adopted for Y, which was used for initial or final 'i' or 'y'. Various medieval manuscripts in different languages show this to be the case.
In the Old Church Slavonic, the letter I was used for conjunction 'and', and some languages, like Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian in some dialects, retained it to this day. Under the German influence, the word INU was used in different Slovenian dialects for English 'and', and eventually, it evolved to IN. Besides being a free standing word, i or j (in Slovenian language the letter Y was replaced by either i or y) are also very common grammatical endings.
The same could be said for the word DY (which I read exactly the same as designated by EVA), which would be the medieval spelling for Slovenian word DAJ or DI/TI . Because the semivowel was not pronounced, it was not written in this particular word until the writers in the 16th century changed the rules. Besides that, the word DY (DAJ) is also one of the most frequently used Slovenian word (a form of a verb DATI - to give, 2. pers. sing. imperative mode). Depending of the mode of writing, like in recipes, instructions and prayers, this mode this ending could replace the EVA-daiin ending, which indicates the 1. person singular writing.
This is not to say that these two letters only work in Slovenian, since there were many words in the medieval manuscript ending on y and retained this letter in various languages.
I believe that disregarding the importance of letters D and Y in the Voynich manuscript could not produce successful results.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Aga Tentakulus - 20-05-2022
It's not exactly what I was pointing at.
I'm thinking of "space + o + o and sentence and subject end.
Why put 2 zeros in this position again.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Juan_Sali - 20-05-2022
(20-05-2022, 11:48 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One option I think is missing from your overview is that the VM plays around with the room left between certain glyphs or glyph combinations. Sometimes there is a small space, sometimes a big one, sometimes it's confusing. So what about a scenario where they are converting their plaintext to Voynichese, and for some reason leave more space after certain glyphs independent of whether or not they were at the end of the word?In my opinion the small spaces are made intentionally. The spaces are a way to separate monograms/bigrams/trigrams, a way to cut a sequence and start a new one. The small spaces make it more difficult to decide if it is a monogram, a bigram or trigram, depending of the spacing or not spacing the result is different.
You can check if most glyphs sorrounding the small spaces have a coincidence with common bigrams or trigrams. (I would answer yes from my observation of the text).
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Koen G - 20-05-2022
I've been thinking about studying this, but I've been held back because I don't know the best way of judging spaces. If you do so by eye, you will probably be succeptible to bias...
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Aga Tentakulus - 20-05-2022
How would one judge an outlier and fit it into a theory?