14-04-2017, 11:35 AM
Hello Anton,
there is always a risk of wandering off-topic, but sometimes it is also necessary. Anyway, the topic was a proposed argumentation that the text is meaningless.
Let me try to summarise what I think are the main points:
- - - start of summary - - -
Donald Fisk presented an analysis that would lead to the (tentative) conclusion that the text in the MS is meaningless.
(I still intend to pick on some interesting aspects of it, in the coming days).
I argued, by using an example, that the tentative conclusion is not justified by the analysis.
This does not mean that I believe that the text cannot be meaningless. I am open to that possibility.
Demonstrating that the text is meaningless seems next to impossible (as Koen stated and I tend to agree).
Donald also stated that there is no conclusive evidence that the text has a meaning.
I agree. I am not aware of such evidence.
Of course this is not at all sufficient to conclude that the text is therefore meaningless.
You argued that there are, what you call "tiny indications" that the text could be meaningful.
I argued that "tiny indications" is not conclusive evidence. I think that this should be obivous.
Whether these tiny indications do add up to something that can be used, will require looking into them more closely, which is probably off-topic for this thread.
- - - end of summary - - -
The main arguments for or against 'meaningful content' are in my opinion:
FOR: it seems very hard to imagine that such a book, that must have taken significant resources to compose, would have a long text without any meaning.
(The strength of this argument I find impossible to judge).
AGAINST: in 100 years nobody has been able to find any meaning in it.
(This argument is not really very strong)
AGAINST: the text near the herbal illustrations is written in two very different vocabularies, and shows nothing of the usual patters that are normal for herbal manuscripts.
(Strictly speaking, this would suggest that the text does not refer to the illustrations, which is a slightly different argument).
FOR: (the Montemurro argument, which is confirmed also by my own analysis): the text shows variations which are typical for different subject matter, and the variations coincide with the types of illustrations.
(The main problem with this analysis is that Montemurro et al do not mention at all the two types of text on the Herbal pages, which are more different than that between sections with different illustrations.)
AGAINST?: There are relatively few repeating phrases.
(For me, this argument is still neutral. Interestingly, this is very well suited for all types of numerical analyses, of which only very few have been made).
there is always a risk of wandering off-topic, but sometimes it is also necessary. Anyway, the topic was a proposed argumentation that the text is meaningless.
Let me try to summarise what I think are the main points:
- - - start of summary - - -
Donald Fisk presented an analysis that would lead to the (tentative) conclusion that the text in the MS is meaningless.
(I still intend to pick on some interesting aspects of it, in the coming days).
I argued, by using an example, that the tentative conclusion is not justified by the analysis.
This does not mean that I believe that the text cannot be meaningless. I am open to that possibility.
Demonstrating that the text is meaningless seems next to impossible (as Koen stated and I tend to agree).
Donald also stated that there is no conclusive evidence that the text has a meaning.
I agree. I am not aware of such evidence.
Of course this is not at all sufficient to conclude that the text is therefore meaningless.
You argued that there are, what you call "tiny indications" that the text could be meaningful.
I argued that "tiny indications" is not conclusive evidence. I think that this should be obivous.
Whether these tiny indications do add up to something that can be used, will require looking into them more closely, which is probably off-topic for this thread.
- - - end of summary - - -
The main arguments for or against 'meaningful content' are in my opinion:
FOR: it seems very hard to imagine that such a book, that must have taken significant resources to compose, would have a long text without any meaning.
(The strength of this argument I find impossible to judge).
AGAINST: in 100 years nobody has been able to find any meaning in it.
(This argument is not really very strong)
AGAINST: the text near the herbal illustrations is written in two very different vocabularies, and shows nothing of the usual patters that are normal for herbal manuscripts.
(Strictly speaking, this would suggest that the text does not refer to the illustrations, which is a slightly different argument).
FOR: (the Montemurro argument, which is confirmed also by my own analysis): the text shows variations which are typical for different subject matter, and the variations coincide with the types of illustrations.
(The main problem with this analysis is that Montemurro et al do not mention at all the two types of text on the Herbal pages, which are more different than that between sections with different illustrations.)
AGAINST?: There are relatively few repeating phrases.
(For me, this argument is still neutral. Interestingly, this is very well suited for all types of numerical analyses, of which only very few have been made).