Following Rene's suggestion, I added CUVA:EO EVA:eo (but not including EVA:eeo which is represented as CUVA:UO). Here it is displayed together with CUVA:SO / EVA:cho.
The new measure separates the Pharma/Recipes section from (most of) Herbal A, showing the variability in Scribe 1's output mentioned by Emma and not detectable from the previous graphs. The bizarre f58 is here shown not to be similar to Pharma/Recipes after all: it appears closer to the main group of Currier B. But from the first graph in the previous post, as also observed by Rene, we know that f58 greatly differs from Currier B on the basis of EVA:ed.
I have also tried using Principal Component Analysis to map the seven dimensions (CUVA:ED OL DY SO HO OR EO) to only two dimensions that can be easily plotted. All the measure are homogeneous (bigram percentages), so I did not apply any normalization. Since this is the first time I experiment with PCA, I am particularly doubtful of the correctness or meaningfulness of what I did. At least the graph seems comparable with the information provided by all the others.
Principal Component 1 (Y axis) nicely separates Currier A from B. If what I have done is correct, this graph does not seem to show a true continuity in the dialects: there are noticeable gaps.
PC2 shows different things for the two areas:
Currier A at the bottom is split in three separate clusters: most Herbal A pages on the left; f58, f51 (the red square whose label is hidden) and Astro/Cosmo pages at the centre; Pharma/Recipes and some of the HerbalA pages that are bound near the Pharma section on the right. Interestingly, the small group at the centre was written by three different scribes (1, 3 and 4).
Currier B (top half of the diagram) also shows a good deal of variability along PC2, but here it seems impossible to discern groups: HerbalB, Q20 and Bio/Balneo all overlap. Also in this case, the variability does not seem to clearly correspond to scribes or sections.
The new measure separates the Pharma/Recipes section from (most of) Herbal A, showing the variability in Scribe 1's output mentioned by Emma and not detectable from the previous graphs. The bizarre f58 is here shown not to be similar to Pharma/Recipes after all: it appears closer to the main group of Currier B. But from the first graph in the previous post, as also observed by Rene, we know that f58 greatly differs from Currier B on the basis of EVA:ed.
I have also tried using Principal Component Analysis to map the seven dimensions (CUVA:ED OL DY SO HO OR EO) to only two dimensions that can be easily plotted. All the measure are homogeneous (bigram percentages), so I did not apply any normalization. Since this is the first time I experiment with PCA, I am particularly doubtful of the correctness or meaningfulness of what I did. At least the graph seems comparable with the information provided by all the others.
Principal Component 1 (Y axis) nicely separates Currier A from B. If what I have done is correct, this graph does not seem to show a true continuity in the dialects: there are noticeable gaps.
PC2 shows different things for the two areas:
Currier A at the bottom is split in three separate clusters: most Herbal A pages on the left; f58, f51 (the red square whose label is hidden) and Astro/Cosmo pages at the centre; Pharma/Recipes and some of the HerbalA pages that are bound near the Pharma section on the right. Interestingly, the small group at the centre was written by three different scribes (1, 3 and 4).
Currier B (top half of the diagram) also shows a good deal of variability along PC2, but here it seems impossible to discern groups: HerbalB, Q20 and Bio/Balneo all overlap. Also in this case, the variability does not seem to clearly correspond to scribes or sections.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)