22-08-2021, 10:15 PM
Hi Marco, I've just managed to finish the article too. I agree it is hugely interesting and worth the time taken to read it. (I only wish Patrick would write for the average human and let us take his work in smaller chunks!)
The first point I would like to make is about the difference between absolute and continuous distribution of words and glyphs. Patrick makes this distinction very clear at the start, though it's slightly obscured by the time we get to the end. The absolute distribution is well-known, Currier knew it, I've discussed it and so have many others. The continuous distribution is what's new and really what we're seeking (at this moment) to prove or disprove. If proven, it's a significant new discovery.
Patrick covers most of the angles and there are certainly no obvious gaps or blindspots in his discussion. I think the one I would want to investigate most is the variability of glyphs and words by section. This is addressed, but maybe not as much as it could be. We know that different sections have different line lengths and paragraph lengths (as you know, paragraphs in Quire 20 are usually very short). Average word length between sections might also differ, such as with the greater use of [dy].
As [sh] is relatively more common in Quire 13 than other sections, [ch] more common in Hand 1 Herbal, [a] more common in Quire 2o, and [q] three times as common in Quire 13 than Hand 1 Herbal, I would really like to see those factored out. I think proof based on glyphs alone is probably best to ensure comparability and a robust sample size.
The other thing I would like to state is that even if continuous distribution is proven it doesn't subsume absolute distribution. Final [m] occurs at the end of a line due to an absolute effect, not a continuous one. Likewise for a number of patterns. They're not just near, or have a tendency toward, they are at an absolute position. Continuous distribution overlays that, adding to the complexity, but cannot replace it.
The first point I would like to make is about the difference between absolute and continuous distribution of words and glyphs. Patrick makes this distinction very clear at the start, though it's slightly obscured by the time we get to the end. The absolute distribution is well-known, Currier knew it, I've discussed it and so have many others. The continuous distribution is what's new and really what we're seeking (at this moment) to prove or disprove. If proven, it's a significant new discovery.
Patrick covers most of the angles and there are certainly no obvious gaps or blindspots in his discussion. I think the one I would want to investigate most is the variability of glyphs and words by section. This is addressed, but maybe not as much as it could be. We know that different sections have different line lengths and paragraph lengths (as you know, paragraphs in Quire 20 are usually very short). Average word length between sections might also differ, such as with the greater use of [dy].
As [sh] is relatively more common in Quire 13 than other sections, [ch] more common in Hand 1 Herbal, [a] more common in Quire 2o, and [q] three times as common in Quire 13 than Hand 1 Herbal, I would really like to see those factored out. I think proof based on glyphs alone is probably best to ensure comparability and a robust sample size.
The other thing I would like to state is that even if continuous distribution is proven it doesn't subsume absolute distribution. Final [m] occurs at the end of a line due to an absolute effect, not a continuous one. Likewise for a number of patterns. They're not just near, or have a tendency toward, they are at an absolute position. Continuous distribution overlays that, adding to the complexity, but cannot replace it.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)