Glyph counts between Gallows

[julian]

Hi Julian

We know that EVA likely inflates glyph counts to some extent. This is almost certain for benches, and arguments can be made for other frequent n-grams in EVA, like [qo], [iin] or even [aiin]. I think this might be an issue because you compare various context: after K, after P, after benched gallows... 

Here is an exaggerated scenario:
- Let's imagine that [iin] is actually one glyph. This adds two characters to the count whenever it occurs.
- Imagine that [iin] is more common following unbenched gallows, with on average one extra [iin] per gallow.

In this case, the counts for unbenched gallows are on average two higher because of EVA, not because of Voynichese.

You write in your conclusion: "The number of glyphs that follow a benched Gallows is typically 3, before the next Gallows is encountered. For un-benched Gallows, this number is typically 5 to 7." If the glyphs following benched gallows tend to be different glyphs than those following unbenched gallows, then it is possible that the different numbers are caused in part by EVA-inflation. It is also possible though that you will get the same proportions with different parsing, but I cannot rule out EVA-inflation just by looking at your data.

Hi Koen,

OK, that's what I suspected you meant :-) I don't think the absolute values of the counts matter too much, only that there is a preferred value, and the distribution shape of the values. For EVA, the count of glyphs following a benched gallows are usually 3 and for un-benched between 5 and 7. For Voyn_101 the number will be N for benched and M for un-benched. Will M-N be different or the same for all transcriptions, and will the shapes of the distributions look the same as for EVA?

EVA example benched gallows pair f1r, line 9:

Code:

cphesaiin.ol.s.cphey

Same pair Voyn_101:

Code:

Gcsam.oes.Gc9