13-03-2024, 01:29 AM
(12-03-2024, 01:06 PM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The article contains several mistakes. The most problematic statement is the following one:
Quote:As with writing in any familiar language, the separate sections of the Voynich Manuscript show a certain clustering of words according to their topics: There are words in the manuscript that only appear in the botanical section or the pharmaceutical section of the manuscript or so on, Bowern said to Knowable Magazine in 2021, making the text look a lot like meaningful language.
It is unfortunate that incorrect statements about the Voynich manuscript like that by Claire Bowern are spread out. Bowerns statement obviously refers to the well known observation that certain glyph combinations occur more frequently in certain sections. For instance EVA-edy is more common in Currier B than in Currier A. However, this does not imply that words are systematically organized around topics. On the contrary, a word dominating one page may be rare or absent on the next. Furthermore, if a word is common in one section, it always can also be found in other sections.
...
As far as I am concerned, the description at the end of the second paragraph:
Quote:For instance EVA-edy is more common in Currier B than in Currier A. However, this does not imply that words are systematically organized around topics. On the contrary, a word dominating one page may be rare or absent on the next. Furthermore, if a word is common in one section, it always can also be found in other sections.
is not in contradiction with the statement in the article:
Quote:As with writing in any familiar language, the separate sections of the Voynich Manuscript show a certain clustering of words according to their topics: There are words in the manuscript that only appear in the botanical section or the pharmaceutical section of the manuscript or so on, Bowern said to Knowable Magazine in 2021, making the text look a lot like meaningful language.
For me, both are correct.
The latter was already argued in the paper by Montemurro and Zanette. Now while their argument is not proof of meaning, the article also does not say that. Instead,
Quote:making the text look a lot like meaningful language.
is a completely defendable statement.
Yes, there are some inaccuracies in the article, but for me, this isn't one of them