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

[Torsten]

To disprove Currier you would need an example like "an apear and an apple".

See our paper, page 19, where we talk about initial consonant mutations in Welsh (they're present in other Celtic languages too.)

This is indeed an interesting example. Dr. V. Sazonov has also given an example for Arabic: "The phonetical dependency is very often in arabic: for example the initial particle 'AL' changes itself depending on a final of the previous word" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). So if you think that the VMS-text represents natural language it is maybe worth to investigate Celtic languages and Arabic further. 

For the VMS "these phenomena are consistent, statistically significant, and hold true throughout those areas of text where they are found." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Is this also the case for Welsh and Arabic?

You are using a magnifying glass and what you see is a yellow spot. Then you argue that maybe the wall is yellow, or maybe there are some yellow squares, or maybe it is a large painting of Salvador Dalhi.

Yes, this is inductive reasoning. We move from the specific to the general. We're using observations on specific aspects of the text to construct a more general theory of the whole. This is a single paper, however, and provides only evidence and support, not a complete theory and its proof.

Do you believe that you have enough data to construct a more general theory? 

Would you argue that <qo...> is the same as <o...>? See the following word counts for the whole VMS.  How do you explain that if the <o...> variant is rare also the <qo...> variant is rarely used?

odaiin (60) qodaiin (42) qokaiin (262) okaiin (212) otaiin (154) qotaiin (79)
odain  (18) qodain  (11) qokain  (279) okain  (144) otain  ( 96) qotain  (64)
odan   ( 2) qodan   ( 2) qokan   (  8) okan   (  5) otan   (  5) qotan   ( 2) 
odal   (13) qodal   ( 7) qokal   (191) okal   (138) otal   (143) qotal   (59) 
odam   ( 6) qodam   ( 3) qokam   ( 25) okam   ( 26) otam   ( 47) qotam   (12) 
odor   ( 8) qodor   ( 2) qokor   ( 36) okor   ( 34) otor   ( 46) qotor   (29) 
odol   ( 2) qodol   ( 1) qokol   (104) okol   ( 82) otol   ( 86) qotol   (47)

There are relevant differences between Currier A and B. With other words your discussion part is based on a single observation and this observation is not consistent for the whole text.

We try to explore our observations in a couple of different ways, to check how strong and consistent they are. We acknowledge they're not always as strong or consistent as we would like. We note some exceptions, such as the difference between Currier A and B, and the position of [l]. Our conclusions are not a solution but rather a summary of our research on the topic. We try to point toward the best explanation we can.

Your blog is full of posts about interesting observations. But you have picked this observation for your paper. Would you also argue that "Line Start Patterns" point to a natural language (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)?

I would be happy to listen to arguments why a different explanation is better. But we must explain word break combinations. They are real phenomena and any theory which doesn't account for them must be wrong. Even a tentative explanation is better than complete ignorance.

My answer is that it is just another example of local repetition. If the the self-citation method was used to generate the text it was only possible to copy an element of a word already written. Therefore it expected that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first. There is no contradiction between your paper and the self-citation method.

We argue that "the shape of a glyph must be compatible with the shape of the previous one and is also influenced by its position within a word or a line." (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10).  Did you note that one outcome of your Charts 4.1. and 4.2. is that similar glyphs are related to each other? How do you explain that <ch> behaves like <sh>, <a> like <y>, <r> like <s>, <m> like <n>, and <o> like <y>?

See also Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10: "It even happens that the first glyph of a word is suggested by the last glyph of the previous word (Currier 1976): “‘Words’ ending in the <y> sort of symbol, which is very frequent, are followed about four times as often by ‘words’ beginning with <qo>.” This feature explains why the prefix <qo> becomes more frequent at the same time as words similar to <chedy> are used more frequently."