Mark, if you could produce text with Voynichese properties (without copying or looking at Voynichese itself while you are doing it), then it means you have a strong understanding of its structure and would potentially be able to describe it.
That, in itself, would be an achievement because being able to describe it can help to differentiate between linguistic, conlang, or other patterns.
Taking whole tokens and repeating them would not accomplish this goal because it does not differentiate between meaningful or meaningless text. It would have to be individual glyphs or components that come together to form the same structure. This is essentially what Stolfi, Rugg, and Timm & Schinner, and others have been working on, but from significantly different perspectives and with different degrees of success (Rugg was not very successful, his results do not come out like Voynichese).
In the case of Hyde and Rugg, there was an attempt to prove it was a hoax because they claimed Voynichese could be reproduced with a grille based on a prefix/root/suffix model. The problem is that the text generated by their grille is not very close to Voynichese and tweaking the grille does not improve it because the underlying premise of how VMS text is constructed is wrong. So they thought they had produced Voynich-like text, but... it's not. It violates numerous discernible patterns. In other words, they tried, but did not succeed, in generating Voynich-like text.
I only read Stolfi recently. The forumites kindly provided me with a link. He made many good observations about the VMS text. His observations about the structure of Voynichese are much more in-depth and accurate than anything written by Hyde and Rugg. He really LOOKED at the structure of the text. But, in my opinion, he still hasn't got it quite right. It's a subject too long to address fully in a forum post (it requires a lot of examples), but I don't think the underlying basis of Voynichese completely fits within the core-mantle-crust system.
Timm and Schinner have been working on describing and reproducing Voynich text for years and have published numerous articles that you can find through links on this forum and through web search. They have described patterns of self-similarity from a different perspective from previous researchers, a dynamic that is often overlooked. If you have any questions, you can ask Torsten Timm. He participates on this forum.
Also, as I mentioned, there are some forum threads discussing this, including one which was a challenge to produce Voynichese-like text based on natural language.
MarcoP proposed an exercise of simply producing several pages of meaningless text and numerous researchers reported that they found this quite difficult (I also found it difficult). When trying to produce meaningless text it is very difficult to make it resemble language (which the VMS does, otherwise there would not be so many people proposing substitution ciphers), and also difficult not to quickly start repeating yourself (which the VMS APPEARS to do but which, when studied, turns out to be quite deceptive).
In a nutshell, serious researchers have been working on the problem of creating convincing Voynichese-like text for quite a number of years by whatever means might be possible (algorithmically, systematically, or manually). Whether it's "filler" or meaningful, it's not something that is "relatively easy to produce" as you suggested in previous posts.
That, in itself, would be an achievement because being able to describe it can help to differentiate between linguistic, conlang, or other patterns.
Taking whole tokens and repeating them would not accomplish this goal because it does not differentiate between meaningful or meaningless text. It would have to be individual glyphs or components that come together to form the same structure. This is essentially what Stolfi, Rugg, and Timm & Schinner, and others have been working on, but from significantly different perspectives and with different degrees of success (Rugg was not very successful, his results do not come out like Voynichese).
Quote:So are you saying that in your opinion nobody has yet manually or otherwise produced text with Voynich-like qualities or are you saying that you think such text has been produced, but it was not that easy to do so?
In the case of Hyde and Rugg, there was an attempt to prove it was a hoax because they claimed Voynichese could be reproduced with a grille based on a prefix/root/suffix model. The problem is that the text generated by their grille is not very close to Voynichese and tweaking the grille does not improve it because the underlying premise of how VMS text is constructed is wrong. So they thought they had produced Voynich-like text, but... it's not. It violates numerous discernible patterns. In other words, they tried, but did not succeed, in generating Voynich-like text.
I only read Stolfi recently. The forumites kindly provided me with a link. He made many good observations about the VMS text. His observations about the structure of Voynichese are much more in-depth and accurate than anything written by Hyde and Rugg. He really LOOKED at the structure of the text. But, in my opinion, he still hasn't got it quite right. It's a subject too long to address fully in a forum post (it requires a lot of examples), but I don't think the underlying basis of Voynichese completely fits within the core-mantle-crust system.
Timm and Schinner have been working on describing and reproducing Voynich text for years and have published numerous articles that you can find through links on this forum and through web search. They have described patterns of self-similarity from a different perspective from previous researchers, a dynamic that is often overlooked. If you have any questions, you can ask Torsten Timm. He participates on this forum.
Also, as I mentioned, there are some forum threads discussing this, including one which was a challenge to produce Voynichese-like text based on natural language.
MarcoP proposed an exercise of simply producing several pages of meaningless text and numerous researchers reported that they found this quite difficult (I also found it difficult). When trying to produce meaningless text it is very difficult to make it resemble language (which the VMS does, otherwise there would not be so many people proposing substitution ciphers), and also difficult not to quickly start repeating yourself (which the VMS APPEARS to do but which, when studied, turns out to be quite deceptive).
In a nutshell, serious researchers have been working on the problem of creating convincing Voynichese-like text for quite a number of years by whatever means might be possible (algorithmically, systematically, or manually). Whether it's "filler" or meaningful, it's not something that is "relatively easy to produce" as you suggested in previous posts.