+- 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: EVA-h or q before benched gallows (/thread-3661.html)
EVA-h or q before benched gallows - nablator - 28-09-2021
Roughly 95% of vords (tokens) having at least two EVA characters preceding benched gallows have a 'h' or 'q' among them.
Examples:
6r.13 qocThol
6v.2 chcKhy
6v.3 oochocKhy
6v.4 ShcKhy
6v.6 ShocThol chocTHhy
6v.15 chocKhy
First exception:
9v.5 olcFholy: no 'h', no 'q' before 'cFh'
RE: EVA-h or q before benched gallows - pfeaster - 28-09-2021
(28-09-2021, 02:38 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Roughly 95% of vords having at least two characters preceding a benched gallows have a 'h' or 'q' among them.Thanks for sharing! As to that first exception, it looks as though [ol] followed by a benched gallows is pretty common, but almost always with a space inserted -- so I wonder whether it might be the spacing of [olcFholy] that's exceptional here rather than the glyph sequence as such. Of course, if it were [ol.cFholy] it wouldn't have fit your criteria, and so wouldn't violate the pattern.
Examples:
6r.13 qocThol
6v.2 chcKhy
6v.3 oochocKhy
6v.4 ShcKhy
6v.6 ShocThol chocTHhy
6v.15 chocKhy
First exception:
9v.5 olcFholy: no 'h', no 'q' before 'cFh'
I recently noticed one other curious pattern involving benched gallows preceded by [ch] or [Sh] (with apologies if this is already old news). If we calculate the probability that any given token of [ch] or [Sh] will be followed by [cKh] or [cTh], we get:
ch>cKh (243 tokens, 2.39%), ch>cTh (134 tokens, 1.32%), Sh>cKh (95 tokens, 2.23%), Sh>cTh (50 tokens, 1.17%)
But if we do the same for [n.ch/Sh] or [y.ch/Sh], we get:
n.ch>cKh (96 tokens, 7.46%), n.ch>cTh (46 tokens, 3.57%), n.Sh>cKh (38 tokens, 5.74%), n.Sh>cTh (17 tokens, 2.57%)
y.ch>cKh (77 tokens, 4.20%), y.ch>cTh (38 tokens, 2.07%), y.Sh>cKh (34 tokens, 4.10%), y.Sh>cTh (15 tokens, 1.81%)
In other words, when [n] or [y] precedes [ch] or [Sh], the likelihood of a benched gallows coming next in the sequence seems to increase, and to increase a good deal more for [n] than for [y], which implies that the issue isn't merely whether the [ch] or [Sh] is vord-initial. It looks like this might also be true for [cho] and [Sho], but the total glyph counts are so low for those combinations that it's harder to tell whether the differences are meaningful.
(PS. The counts I cite for y.ch>cKh and y.ch>cTh actually include one unspaced token apiece, as ych>cKh and ych>cTh; with spaces the token counts would be 76 and 37. But whether we include these or not doesn't much affect the percentages.)
RE: EVA-h or q before benched gallows - nablator - 28-09-2021
Hello Patrick,
I'm puzzled by your notations:
ch>cKh (243 tokens): If it is ch before cKh in the same word, there should be more.
n.ch>cKh (77 tokens): Why n? It never precedes cKh. I don't understand.
RE: EVA-h or q before benched gallows - Koen G - 28-09-2021
An argument from "glyphhood" of benches and [qo]? Add some uncertain spaces, and you have a pretty neat rule that benched gallows are preceded by at most one glyph in the vast majority of cases.
RE: EVA-h or q before benched gallows - nickpelling - 28-09-2021
My suspicion has long been that the 'c..h' in benched gallows is u or v in the plaintext, simply because qu was one of the few cryptographic tells that pre-1450 codemakers would like to conceal.
RE: EVA-h or q before benched gallows - pfeaster - 28-09-2021
(28-09-2021, 07:18 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello Patrick,
I'm puzzled by your notations:
ch>cKh (243 tokens): If it is ch before cKh in the same word, there should be more.
n.ch>cKh (77 tokens): Why n? It never precedes cKh. I don't understand.
I'm sorry for not explaining my notations clearly. Let me try this again.
The ">" is a symbol I've been using to distinguish transitional probabilities from bigrams -- i.e., the probability of the part before the ">" being followed by the part after the ">."
By "ch>cKh" I mean the condition or likelihood of any [ch] being followed immediately by [cKh], and not just that [cKh] occurs somewhere later in the same vord. That is, for all 10177 tokens of [ch], 243 of them (or 2.39%) are followed immediately by [cKh]; hence, after any given token of [ch] there's a 2.39% chance the next glyph(s) will be [cKh]. This is based on ZL_ivtff_1r.txt and limited to text in paragraphs (no labels, radii, circles, etc.).
By "n.ch," I mean the sequence [n] followed by [ch], as an n-gram. I inserted the period to reflect the fact that when [n] is followed by [ch] there's almost always a space inserted between, but maybe it would have been better to write "n,ch" to acknowledge the handful of exceptions. In any case, I count 1287 total tokens of [n.ch], [nch], and [n,ch].
By "n.ch>cKh" I then mean the condition or likelihood of a token of [n,ch] being followed in turn by [cKh]. I count 96 instances like this. So given any token of the sequence [n,ch], the probability of the next glyph(s) being [cKh] is 7.46%.
So what I meant to point out was that, if we disregard spaces, the likelihood of [ch] or [Sh] being followed by a benched gallows appears to go up if the [ch] or [Sh] is preceded in turn by [n] or [y].
I hadn't checked the specific probabilities of [.ch] and [.Sh] being followed by benched gallows (i.e., cases in which [ch] or [Sh] is vord-initial but not line-initial). Easy enough to do, however. I count 5063 tokens of [.ch], 226 tokens (4.46%) of [.chcKh], and 119 tokens (2.35%) of [.chcTh]; and 2606 tokens of [.Sh], 86 tokens (3.30%) of [.ShcKh], and 44 tokens (1.69%) of [.ShcTh]. These are all fairly close to the percentages associated with a preceding [y].
But the percentages associated with a preceding [n] are still noticeably higher. So it looks as though a vord beginning [ch] or [Sh] is significantly more likely to continue with [cKh] or [cTh] if it's preceded by a vord ending in [n] than it is otherwise. Again, apologies if this is old news.