29-07-2017, 08:39 PM
(29-07-2017, 02:21 PM)Anton wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@JKP
What you write is about another question - it's rather about whether the text is meaningful or meaningless.
I'm writing about whether the text is a flow of "language" (be that plain text or enciphered, does not matter) or not. In both cases there may or may not be cross-connections between sections.
Another counter-argument agaist the "synthetic notation" is the number of unique vords ("word types") which is 8114 according to Reddy & Knight (quoted per voynich.nu). Which is not that very low; the whole Shakespeare's vocabulary, for example, consists of only ~29000 word forms (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
No, I wasn't writing about whether the text is meaningful or meaningless.
I created a concordance to SPECIFICALLY map connections between tokens (basically a spider-web of tokens), to see if there were code-tokens to link together different sections or folios, rather than natural-language words. I can glance at this document (which is more than 2,000 pages long) and, in moments, tell you which words link to which ones in terms of form, subject matter (which section they're in), and in glyph-shape glyph/similarity.
For example...
I thought I had discovered a pattern to how big plants link to starred pages, but on careful re-evaluation, it's not consistent enough to draw any conclusions (or to yield useful information).
I also thought I had discovered a way to interpret the pages that have vertical columns and there MIGHT be, based on linking words, but it too is not clear enough to be sure.
When I did this, I was not worrying about the meaning of the tokens, or even assuming there was any. I was searching for patterns and connections.