07-04-2019, 01:26 PM
I think this is a very interesting topic. Obviously I have my own views on the subject, and they are incorporated into my own theory which has its own separate thread. But here I can make some general observations, language-neutral and theory-neutral, based on my analysis of the Voynich character inventory.
Some Voynich characters are very rare, and if they represent distinct phones, they must be very rare phones. I have in mind [z], [v], and [x]. They are rarely even mentioned in discussions of Voynich characters. [g] is rare as well, although not quite so much as the other three.
A key set of Voynich characters occur in strictly restricted positions in the text: [p], [f], [m], [q], (i), [n], usually considered together as [(i)in]. It is hard to argue that any of them could be the only representation of any particular phone.
[Note: I cannot type (i) with square brackets because it italicizes the entire text of the rest of the post.]
Then we have the characters that have the appearance of ligatures: [ckh], [cth], [cph], [cfh], and also the various forms of [sh]. I argue that these ligatures are much more likely to represent combinations or variant forms of phones, as is typical of ligatures, rather than the primary or only representation of any particular distinct phone.
These considerations drastically reduce the size of the set of Voynich characters that could each potentially represent distinct phones. I count only 11 of them! :
[a], [ch], [d], [e], [k], [l], [o], [r], [s], [t], [y]
Now we see one possible reason why the statistical properties of Voynich text consistently appear to be similar to those of Hawaiian: the latter is one of the few languages in the world, along with other Polynesian languages such as Maori, that have such a small inventory of phones and letters.
I hope readers can see from this analysis that the idea of characters with multiple or "ambiguous" phone values is not just some arbitrary and idiosyncratic idea that I got in my head for my own pet theory, but rather it follows directly from an objective and language-neutral analysis of the entire Voynich character inventory itself.
Of course there are many ways that 11 characters could represent all the phones of some language, but I think a breakdown for consonants such as 1) liquids, 2) nasals, 3) sibilants, 4) labials, 5) dentals, 6) gutturals is a natural and logical idea, and then similarly for sets of vowels such as 1) front vowels, 2) back vowels, 3) rounded vowels, etc., although there will be some overlap of these vowel categories.
These considerations would apply to any language, not just one particular language in one particular theory.
Geoffrey
Some Voynich characters are very rare, and if they represent distinct phones, they must be very rare phones. I have in mind [z], [v], and [x]. They are rarely even mentioned in discussions of Voynich characters. [g] is rare as well, although not quite so much as the other three.
A key set of Voynich characters occur in strictly restricted positions in the text: [p], [f], [m], [q], (i), [n], usually considered together as [(i)in]. It is hard to argue that any of them could be the only representation of any particular phone.
[Note: I cannot type (i) with square brackets because it italicizes the entire text of the rest of the post.]
Then we have the characters that have the appearance of ligatures: [ckh], [cth], [cph], [cfh], and also the various forms of [sh]. I argue that these ligatures are much more likely to represent combinations or variant forms of phones, as is typical of ligatures, rather than the primary or only representation of any particular distinct phone.
These considerations drastically reduce the size of the set of Voynich characters that could each potentially represent distinct phones. I count only 11 of them! :
[a], [ch], [d], [e], [k], [l], [o], [r], [s], [t], [y]
Now we see one possible reason why the statistical properties of Voynich text consistently appear to be similar to those of Hawaiian: the latter is one of the few languages in the world, along with other Polynesian languages such as Maori, that have such a small inventory of phones and letters.
I hope readers can see from this analysis that the idea of characters with multiple or "ambiguous" phone values is not just some arbitrary and idiosyncratic idea that I got in my head for my own pet theory, but rather it follows directly from an objective and language-neutral analysis of the entire Voynich character inventory itself.
Of course there are many ways that 11 characters could represent all the phones of some language, but I think a breakdown for consonants such as 1) liquids, 2) nasals, 3) sibilants, 4) labials, 5) dentals, 6) gutturals is a natural and logical idea, and then similarly for sets of vowels such as 1) front vowels, 2) back vowels, 3) rounded vowels, etc., although there will be some overlap of these vowel categories.
These considerations would apply to any language, not just one particular language in one particular theory.
Geoffrey