+- 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: Time to retire Currier languages? (/thread-3610.html)
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - bi3mw - 27-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 04:51 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.While it is true that some folios may not be sorted correctly, I would not go so far as to assume that the VMS was bound completely "jumbled".
(27-07-2021, 05:00 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This may be explained away by the tedious work being distributed across a number of scribes working in parallel.Even with parallel editing, I would assume that the writers edited individual blocks, otherwise it would hardly have been possible to work in an orderly manner. In addition, the tasks for the individual writers would then have been distributed more evenly.
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - Helmut Winkler - 27-07-2021
The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.
That is simply not true, it is one of thr urban legends of Beineke 48 research. There is no reason to believe that the order of the original author was changed because there never was an order planned beforehand
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - Helmut Winkler - 27-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 05:00 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-07-2021, 11:55 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I find remarkable, at least, is that the five scribes are distributed throughout the manuscript and do not appear in successive "blocks." This is especially true for the "botanical section".
One would assume that one scribe takes over a section and then passes the MS to the next scribe for further editing (and so on).
This may be explained away by the tedious work being distributed across a number of scribes working in parallel. Imagine there are plain text sheets prepared, and the job is to just encipher the contents and plot it all down.
You can explain away and imagine as long as you like but it it makes more sense to look the fats in the face
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - MarcoP - 27-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 05:16 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-07-2021, 04:51 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.
That is simply not true, it is one of thr urban legends of Beineke 48 research. There is no reason to believe that the order of the original author was changed because there never was an order planned beforehand
The idea that there never was an original order is bizarre but maybe it is not entirely impossible. If one prefers to think of a single author who gradually drifted through different writing systems, one should take Emma's point as hinting to the fact that the binding does not respect the order in which the pages were written. Maybe there was no planned order, but if the manuscript was written by a single person there certainly was a chronological order.
Pages belonging to the same bifolio show a fairly consistent language, but bifolios seem to have been bound arbitrarily, maybe only considering the illustrations, so that pages that are now consecutive have wildly different bigram distributions.
For instance, these 12 pages consist of three bifolios. If one looks at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., it is clear that the outer bifolio f26/31 was written in a different time (and/or by a different scribe and/or with a different writing system) than the other two bifolios.
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - Scarecrow - 27-07-2021
Quote:For instance, these 12 pages consist of three bifolios. If one looks at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., it is clear that the outer bifolio f26/31 was written in a different time (and/or by a different scribe and/or with a different writing system) than the other two bifolios.
Could this edy difference be explained by writing in different tense, i.e. bifolio 26 was written in (some) perfect and thus needed edy but the other bifolios in present. Tense is just one example, could be some other construction. Imperative. Future. Could this be possible ?
Many times I’ve imagined that vms writer started this when he was young and finished it when he was old, so the writing reflects how the writer mastery of the languages evolved. The older he gets, the way of writing changes, from style, vocabulary to calligraphy. And reflecting also how the language evolved in the environment he/she lived in, picking up newer trends.
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - Anton - 27-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 05:04 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even with parallel editing, I would assume that the writers edited individual blocks, otherwise it would hardly have been possible to work in an orderly manner. In addition, the tasks for the individual writers would then have been distributed more evenly.
Not sure why that would have been worked in orderly manner or distributed evenly. Even nowadays, most of what's done is done in disorderly manner and distributed unevenly... at least here in Russia!
(27-07-2021, 05:19 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You can explain away and imagine as long as you like but it it makes more sense to look the fats in the face
Which facts?
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - Emma May Smith - 27-07-2021
For the sake of being complete, here's how Currier defined A and B in the Herbal section:
Quote:(a) Final ‘dy’ is very high in Language ‘B’; almost non-existent in Language ‘A.’
(b) The symbol groups ‘chol’ and ‘chor’ are very high in ‘A’ and often occur repeated; low in ‘B’.
© The symbol groups ‘chain’ and ‘chaiin’ rarely occur in ‘B’; medium frequency in ‘A.’
(d) Initial ‘chot’ high in ‘A’; rare in ‘B.’
(e) Initial ‘cTh’ very high in ‘A’; very low in ‘B.’
(f) ‘Unattached’ finals scattered throughout Language ‘B’ texts in considerable profusion; generally much less noticeable in Language ‘A.’
I think that:
a) This is an overstatement. Final [dy] is much less common in Herbal A, but plenty occurrences exist.
b) [chol] and [chor] are definitely higher in A.
c) There are too few occurrences of [chain] to make an argument, but [chaiin] is common enough in B while being almost absent in A.
d) While [chot*] appears frequently on some A pages, it is wholly absent from many. Seems more like a page thing than a language thing.
e) This seems broadly true.
f) I'm not sure this can be easily assessed.
Overall, of the six statements, two are true, one half true, and another true in the whole but not in detail.
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - nickpelling - 27-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 04:51 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order. I don't see how the order of sections or scribes can be used as an argument unless the original order can be fully reconstructed.
Has anybody done that?
Heaven knows I tried. But it would need a different kind of scan and/or codicological attack to even come moderately close.
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - nickpelling - 27-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 05:16 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.
That is simply not true, it is one of thr urban legends of Beineke 48 research. There is no reason to believe that the order of the original author was changed because there never was an order planned beforehand
The quire numbers are inconsistent with the foliation, and some of the wide bifolios have been rebound along different folds from what was clearly intended. Anyone claiming that what we are looking at now was the original intended state is codicologically naive and/or not looking very hard.
And that's before we even get to all the (very strong, very persuasive) evidence about the herbal pages and Q13.
RE: Time to retire Currier languages? - nablator - 28-07-2021
(27-07-2021, 10:06 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the sake of being complete, here's how Currier defined A and B in the Herbal section:
Quote:(f) ‘Unattached’ finals scattered throughout Language ‘B’ texts in considerable profusion; generally much less noticeable in Language ‘A.’
f) I'm not sure this can be easily assessed.
It's been discussed here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.