That's why I created a concordance of every token in the manuscript. To see if there were patterns.
The only significant one I found was that ch-tokens are a little more common in the plant section, t-tokens in the zodiac section.
I did not find anything that indicated hot/cold/wet/dry for specific plants (as was common in medieval herbals) or any of the numerous other classification systems that were common in the Middle Ages. Some of them almost looked like they might work, but there was never a complete set.
I didn't find patterns that might indicate leaf patterns or flower pattern, or habitat, or growth morphology amongst similar drawings.
I really expected to find something (assuming the drawings are somehow related to the text, and that the tokens are discrete words and that the content is linguistic). All it did was confirm my initial impression from years earlier that individual tokens are probably not linguistic.
The only significant one I found was that ch-tokens are a little more common in the plant section, t-tokens in the zodiac section.
I did not find anything that indicated hot/cold/wet/dry for specific plants (as was common in medieval herbals) or any of the numerous other classification systems that were common in the Middle Ages. Some of them almost looked like they might work, but there was never a complete set.
I didn't find patterns that might indicate leaf patterns or flower pattern, or habitat, or growth morphology amongst similar drawings.
I really expected to find something (assuming the drawings are somehow related to the text, and that the tokens are discrete words and that the content is linguistic). All it did was confirm my initial impression from years earlier that individual tokens are probably not linguistic.