Vord paradigm tool

[MichelleL11]

Here I present a study of some of the patterns of LINES by employing a simple method of parsing. . . . 

Just as consonant/vowel alternation (CVCVCV) is a structural foundation of the default vord QOKEEDY, so it is structural to lines. We expose this by the simple device of following where vords alternate or cluster in lines according to initial glyph.

Hi, Hermes:

I join the others in thanking you for sharing these thoughts.  It is very refreshing to have an alternative way to think about the ways to parse the glyphs.  

Although I may be just repeating, in a more simplistic manner, an observation that Patrick makes in his posting,  I think it is worth emphasizing the concern with the general classification of each glyph as having an independent and, most importantly, consistent "identity" in your parsing set ups -- even something as simple as "consonant" and "vowel."  For example, a big problem in my mind is that I don't think each "y" is the same "thing" and any parsing that assumes this is going to have real problems, in my opinion.

Given the highly unusual low conditional character entropy of the text, this seems to necessitate some sort of approach as to how the glyphs are interpreted (or parsed) that helps to remedy the entropy gap between this unusual characteristic and other language.  Of course, I am making a myriad of assumptions here with that statement, but I am concerned that any usefulness in your parsing scheme could be totally subsumed if the incredible amount of glyph-glyph (or glyph-glyph-glyph) association that is needed to produce "valid" Voynichese is ignored.

I'm sure you've read Koen's attempts to push this unusual value upward (if not, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is his final posting on the topic).  Whatever you think about ciphers or not -- any parsing set up will look enormously more possible in my mind if it takes this huge issue into account.

Of course, you are perfectly able to state you think that keeping the "units" of the glyphs at a single glyph level (whatever that might mean to you) is the "right" thing to do but I do think that taking this fundamental entropy issue into account may glean more applicable results.

Please do not see this as a criticism -- but perhaps as a suggestion for moving your beginning model into something that is more likely to give you language applicable patterns?  Thank you for considering this possibility and I'll think about it as well.

Michelle