04-09-2016, 04:54 PM
Hi Thomas,
In my opinion, the key point in approaching the Voynichese text is that we don't know the real Voynich alphabet. E.g., we don't know whether iin stands for three characters or one character, whether l stands for one character or two characters (i plus a tail modifier), etc.
Instead of simply wondering at low character entropy of the Voynich text, a more productive approach would possibly be to try to (re)construct the Voynich alphabet in the way where the character entropy would be normal.
Next, about the orthography decomposition. As I believe I already noted in my review of Brian's paper, if we speak of some rules or mapping, then the rules are there to be adhered to. So if one proposes a "rule" that is followed in only 50% of the cases, that is simply not a rule. Respectively, Brian is right about the testing of the pattern validity. Figures are needed to assess that. I'd say, 85% conformity is a must to ever begin any discussion and 95% would be good conformity to speak of a "rule" (providing 5% for scribal errors).
ce and ee are definitely not the same thing, since that crossbar is met not only with e, but, e.g. with y. Wladimir provided examples of that.
"Gallows coverage" (see the thread about gallows for details) and text entered in multiple passes are things to be considered. I strongly suspect that some kind of shuffling is there in place.
***
Brian, nice to see you on the forum again.
In my opinion, the key point in approaching the Voynichese text is that we don't know the real Voynich alphabet. E.g., we don't know whether iin stands for three characters or one character, whether l stands for one character or two characters (i plus a tail modifier), etc.
Instead of simply wondering at low character entropy of the Voynich text, a more productive approach would possibly be to try to (re)construct the Voynich alphabet in the way where the character entropy would be normal.
Next, about the orthography decomposition. As I believe I already noted in my review of Brian's paper, if we speak of some rules or mapping, then the rules are there to be adhered to. So if one proposes a "rule" that is followed in only 50% of the cases, that is simply not a rule. Respectively, Brian is right about the testing of the pattern validity. Figures are needed to assess that. I'd say, 85% conformity is a must to ever begin any discussion and 95% would be good conformity to speak of a "rule" (providing 5% for scribal errors).
ce and ee are definitely not the same thing, since that crossbar is met not only with e, but, e.g. with y. Wladimir provided examples of that.
"Gallows coverage" (see the thread about gallows for details) and text entered in multiple passes are things to be considered. I strongly suspect that some kind of shuffling is there in place.
***
Brian, nice to see you on the forum again.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)