22-05-2020, 08:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-05-2020, 09:31 PM by Searcher.
Edit Reason: P. S.
)
(21-05-2020, 04:46 PM)PaulW wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Theory 4:
Nobody likes ambiguity (perhaps apart from politicians and lawyers null ).
But when it comes to a writing
a) that often has the same character sequences one after the other, as it does not occur in any real language
b) that probably comes from a time, when an ambiguous system of abbreviations with regard to individual signs that can only be resolved in context was the order of the day
c) where it was probably the intention of the author to invent a secret code as complex as possible,
shouldn't then not every solution that claims a 1:1 solution for the individual characters be viewed critically. Please do not misunderstand this theory as a defense of my work. I mean it basically: The resolution of the individual Voynich characters must be ambiguous for the reasons mentioned above (in particular, argument (a)). In my eyes this is not a weakness, it is a basic requirement of any solution system. Otherwise it cannot work consistently throughout the hole Voynich manuscript (as long as I assume a meaningful content).
Hello Paul!
Above, a couple of days ago, JKP mentioned my Latin theory. And I also realize its inconsistencies, in general, I perfectly see the weaknesses of my theory.I decided to go astray from the theory in order to try out a new approach over time, but even after six months or a year I begin to walk in circles. It is very difficult to completely move away from your theory.
I am weak in computer methods of statistics and in understanding the information that they give, but sometimes I can suppress myself and keep simple statistics in manual mode on a single page scale.
In this case, I took the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page.
First of all, I calculated how many characters of the Voynich “alphabet” are used on this page, there were about 17:
1) if you consider cth and cph ligatures, and iin are separate characters, the page includes 16 different characters;
2) if cth and cph are considered as separate "letters", and iin are separate characters, then the number of variety of characters is 18;
3) if cth and cph are considered as separate “letters”, and iin as a whole letter, the number of characters is 17.
The largest number of the character repetition on the page the glyphs "o", "ch" and "y" have, approximately equally. But at the same time, "y" usually appears at the end of the word, except for two cases. This is really abnormal. On the one hand, such a statistics led me to think of abbreviations, although such a number of them is strange, but it at least explaines why some glyphs are only at the end of the word or at the end and the beginning. The only conclusion for me was: the presence of abbreviations and listing of any objects in the sentence, forming a string of the words with the same ending. Latin is one of the languages where it is more or less possible. Unfortunately, I do not know in which language such a number of identical endings would be more normal.
Here, on the forum, the version that "y" can be a null-character was already considered. Also was considered the version that “q” is a null-character. The problem is that then the number of “letters” from the Voynich "alphabet" become even less, even if you take into account that the other pages contain ckh, cfh, m and g, as well, since some of them are still located (almost always) only at the end.
It turns out that considering the glyphs only as letters, we will have a more or less sufficient number of letters for most of the alphabets, but then we need to remove the spaces and try to interpret each character in this form in the order to let the characters of endings be in any place of a word.
If you interpret characters such as r, in, iin, iiin, m, g and y, as abbreviations for endings, the number of characters for an alphabetic interpretation is even more reduced, that is, by and large, they become about 14. This is not enough. That is why I came up with the theory that one glyph stands for two or more different letters of the alphabet, possibly in accordance with some rules.
I also don't exclude that the Voynich glyphs can represent syllables or combinations of letters (ligatures), or a mix of letters with combinations of letters (or with syllables), where letter combinations should correspond to the most used combinations (sequences) of a particular language.
As for my interpretation, of course, I noticed that some fairly frequent combinations for Latin, for example st and ct, practically do not appear in it, that already indicates an error.
I must also say that I tried to reduce the 23 letters of the Latin alphabet to 17. This number can be obtained by combining more or less homophonic sounds: g, k, q and c; s and z; b and p; t and d.
I believe that those unique, atypical cases of combining Voynich glyphs are another plus in the theory of abbreviations, although they are still not proof. The author could not foresee all the necessary abbreviations initially, so he could improvise on the go. Moreover, we can assume that he either did not foresee all combinations or syllables for non-abbreviations, or was too careful with the repeated characters in the word.
Added P.S.
Has anyone checked the statistics of endings in the VMs after replacing the final “y”? How much will this change?