08-05-2016, 04:10 PM
Hi Marco,
Yes you interpret my points exactly as I meant them.
The biggest problem that I see is point 5), because, being unaware of the rules according to which the vords are constructed, and, hence, being unaware of the logic of mappings between Voynichese and plain text in any language understandable by us (i.e. English), we cannot be realy sure if it is appropriate to mix, e.g., chedy and chedal into the same set, unless we can observe some context that justifies that.
With one-member sets of objects, we do not have this problem. E.g. if folio subset I features only shedy, and folio subset II features only chedy, we can then make deductions about chedy and shedy being "counterparts" in a certain respect, the exact kind of this "respect" being suggested by the contextual difference between folio subsets I and II (cold vs warm signs or otherwise).
What I mean by "observing some context that justifies that" is best illustrated with an example. Consider object sets of f68r1 and f68r2 (Voynich "stars"). I omit the trail of consideration (which can be found in my blog post), but those may well be considered as homogenous and (as an additional nice circumstance) complete sets of objects (notwithstanding that their morphology differs a good deal) - just because of the context in which they are encountered in f68r1 and f68r2. Hence, we can rely on those sets as on real "sets" when discussing those vords' appearance in other places in the VMS.
Yes you interpret my points exactly as I meant them.
The biggest problem that I see is point 5), because, being unaware of the rules according to which the vords are constructed, and, hence, being unaware of the logic of mappings between Voynichese and plain text in any language understandable by us (i.e. English), we cannot be realy sure if it is appropriate to mix, e.g., chedy and chedal into the same set, unless we can observe some context that justifies that.
With one-member sets of objects, we do not have this problem. E.g. if folio subset I features only shedy, and folio subset II features only chedy, we can then make deductions about chedy and shedy being "counterparts" in a certain respect, the exact kind of this "respect" being suggested by the contextual difference between folio subsets I and II (cold vs warm signs or otherwise).
What I mean by "observing some context that justifies that" is best illustrated with an example. Consider object sets of f68r1 and f68r2 (Voynich "stars"). I omit the trail of consideration (which can be found in my blog post), but those may well be considered as homogenous and (as an additional nice circumstance) complete sets of objects (notwithstanding that their morphology differs a good deal) - just because of the context in which they are encountered in f68r1 and f68r2. Hence, we can rely on those sets as on real "sets" when discussing those vords' appearance in other places in the VMS.