14-07-2021, 03:14 AM
Hi Torsten and Marco, thank you for illuminating some of the paper to people like me who are statistically challenged. And of course to the researchers: this paper took time and effort and is appreciated!
Can I ask what might seem an obviously answered question, because I frankly don't understand 90% of the study, and it's a question I had even prior to it. But I am not a linguist at all.
Is it possible that there actually are two dialects being encoded here? Latin, for instance, seems to have been modified by every language group in Europe. Doesn't the difference between A and B, for instance, seem to argue for encoding two different original works (or written by different dialect-speaking scribes) in closely related 'dialects'? And could linguists perhaps derive some clues from the very frequent 89, or eva dy, in B as opposed to A, that seems to be a common ending in one but not the other?
As an aside but continuing thus subject, I do think I remember reading as well that the 40 construction in the VMS is much more frequent in some sections than others. Some observors have thought this might translate to "qu". If so, might the difference between the two " dialects" be the difference between classical Latin and slightly more vulgar Latin that was using quod, quia, etc for clauses very frequently. Both Latins were used at the same time.
I don't want to isolate Latin, btw, just using it as an example.
I guess I find it somewhat dismaying that a different code or cipher might have been used throughout the manuscript; I'd rather believe in a slight shift of dialect in the same language! But is what I've said here wishful thinking or a possibility?
Can I ask what might seem an obviously answered question, because I frankly don't understand 90% of the study, and it's a question I had even prior to it. But I am not a linguist at all.
Is it possible that there actually are two dialects being encoded here? Latin, for instance, seems to have been modified by every language group in Europe. Doesn't the difference between A and B, for instance, seem to argue for encoding two different original works (or written by different dialect-speaking scribes) in closely related 'dialects'? And could linguists perhaps derive some clues from the very frequent 89, or eva dy, in B as opposed to A, that seems to be a common ending in one but not the other?
As an aside but continuing thus subject, I do think I remember reading as well that the 40 construction in the VMS is much more frequent in some sections than others. Some observors have thought this might translate to "qu". If so, might the difference between the two " dialects" be the difference between classical Latin and slightly more vulgar Latin that was using quod, quia, etc for clauses very frequently. Both Latins were used at the same time.
I don't want to isolate Latin, btw, just using it as an example.
I guess I find it somewhat dismaying that a different code or cipher might have been used throughout the manuscript; I'd rather believe in a slight shift of dialect in the same language! But is what I've said here wishful thinking or a possibility?