[Article] Glyph combinations across word breaks in the Voynich Manuscript

[Emma May Smith]

Hello Torsten, you've made a lot of points here, so I'll try to respond to them individually to avoid confusion.

Currier argues that the beginning of a word is related to the suffix of a previous word and that natural language doesn't behave this way.

So, Currier says, "In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next." This is a bizarre statement to make, given that English does just this: a pear and an apple. It's facilely easy to disprove.

Also Emma and Marco come to the conclusion "that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first." (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15).

You missed out the word "tentatively" before your quote. We're aware that the picture is complex.

An example for natural language given in the paper is that the "preceding vowel before a word starting with a vowel is a common phenomenon" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15)

Again, you missed out the words "in Italian" after your quote. It is an example only.

and the authors argue that "Glyphs at the start and end of words could be nulls intended to obscure the underlying text" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18).

We argue against this. The reason why we dismiss this idea is that such nulls would have to be applied regularly therefore having no value in obscuring the underlying text.

Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?

I don't understand your point. Our paper is discussing the relationships between glyphs, not words.

Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?

This is a fair point, but I think you're being very harsh that it constitutes a "mystery". Word break combinations in the Voynich text are rather more predictable than in Latin and English, and a bit more predictable than in Italian. Yet the differences between Latin and English on one hand, and Italian on the other, demonstrate that there is no simple level of predictably which describes a natural language. The conclusion at the end of the manuscript comes from dismissing other potential causes of word break combinations and accepting a linguistic one. It's a summary of all the evidence and arguments, not only predictability.

Much more can be said about consecutive words in the Voynich manuscript.

Undoubtedly.