Vocabulary size by Illustration Type

[Bernd]

Between the two views:

- ignoring sample text length

- dividing by sample text length

both views are imperfect. It is not clear to me which one of the two is the more indicative one.

Certainly, dictionary size increases very non-linearly with sample text size.

It is only a problem when text lenghts are significantly different. That is the case here of course.

Large differences in sample text size are certainly a problem but it can be addressed by subsampling.

You can split each section into chunks of ~1000 vords each (maybe rounded to full pages) to match text length to the smallest and 2nd smallest ones (Astro and Zodiac). This also allows you to test if the differences between sections of different illustration types are significantly larger than within them.

If illustrations do indicate topics, some common terms specific to a particular type of illustration or topic should exist. However such terms doesn't exist.

This hypothesis implies a simple encoding in which 'vords' always translate 1:1 into plaintext words regardless of context, which is highly questionable considering the strange properties of 'Voynichese'. If it was that easy, the VM would have been deciphered long ago.

But still so far there is little (if any?) evidence of a connection between text and imagery. Please correct me if I'm wrong.