25-04-2024, 10:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 25-04-2024, 11:15 PM by Torsten.
Edit Reason: smal change
)
Interesting blog post. I want to add some remarks since the statistics for the Voynich text should be interpreted in the context of what is characteristic for the Voynich text.
It is known that the Voynich text isn't homogenous since glyph combinations or bigrams occur with different frequencies in different parts of the manuscript [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 3]. For instance, the glyph combination EVA-ed is almost nonexistent in Currier A, or the glyph combination EVA-qo is extremely rare for labels and also for the f1r, f1v, and f8v. Also the glyph combination EVA-cth is rare or missing on some folios (f39r, f39v, f40r, f40v, f105v, and f106r). In the same way also the glyph combination EVA-ckh is rare or missing on some folios (see f19v, f20r, f22v, f23r, f114r). Even the bigram EVA-ai is rare or missing on some folios (f27v and f90r1). Regardless of the glyph combination chosen, it is always possible to find folios where it is rare or missing.
This means that changes in bigram frequencies are quite normal for the Voynich text. Therefore other criteria would allow to partition the Voynich text further. For instance EVA-m could be used to distinguish between Currier-A folios with EVA-m (bifolio 3/6, bifolio 17/24 ...) and Currier-A folios without EVA-m (bifolio 2/7, bifolio 10/15, bifolio 20/21, f25r/f25v, ...) Or to distinguish between folios with EVA-m in line final position (Currier B) and folios without a preference for a certain line position (Currier-A).
On the other side the structure of the text remains the same, paragraphs usually start with a gallow glyph, the line works as a functional entity, etc. Another observation is that word types in the VMS belong to a single network: see Timm & Schinner 2019. The existence of a single network allows the conclusion that the whole Voynich text is the result of a single system. In other words, the system and the structure of the text is always the same, even if the glyph combinations vary. Therefore it is interesting to note that it is indeed possible to group the folios according to there illustrations since they often share similar bigram statistics (This is not true for Herbal folios since it necessary to distinguish between Herbal A and Herbal B).
A possible explanation for this observation is that the scribe wrote the text on all folios sharing the same type of illustrations after each other. If this is true it is possible to use the statistics to reveal the original order for the sections in the Voynich text: "Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'. Since words typical for Currier A also exist in Currier B, but not the other way round, it is reasonable to assume that the order shown in Table 2 indeed represents the original sequence in which the sections of the VMS had been created." [Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6].
It is therefore a valuable result that the outcome of the experiment described in Renés blogpost confirms the research results we describe in our paper [see Timm & Schinner 2019].
It is known that the Voynich text isn't homogenous since glyph combinations or bigrams occur with different frequencies in different parts of the manuscript [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 3]. For instance, the glyph combination EVA-ed is almost nonexistent in Currier A, or the glyph combination EVA-qo is extremely rare for labels and also for the f1r, f1v, and f8v. Also the glyph combination EVA-cth is rare or missing on some folios (f39r, f39v, f40r, f40v, f105v, and f106r). In the same way also the glyph combination EVA-ckh is rare or missing on some folios (see f19v, f20r, f22v, f23r, f114r). Even the bigram EVA-ai is rare or missing on some folios (f27v and f90r1). Regardless of the glyph combination chosen, it is always possible to find folios where it is rare or missing.
This means that changes in bigram frequencies are quite normal for the Voynich text. Therefore other criteria would allow to partition the Voynich text further. For instance EVA-m could be used to distinguish between Currier-A folios with EVA-m (bifolio 3/6, bifolio 17/24 ...) and Currier-A folios without EVA-m (bifolio 2/7, bifolio 10/15, bifolio 20/21, f25r/f25v, ...) Or to distinguish between folios with EVA-m in line final position (Currier B) and folios without a preference for a certain line position (Currier-A).
On the other side the structure of the text remains the same, paragraphs usually start with a gallow glyph, the line works as a functional entity, etc. Another observation is that word types in the VMS belong to a single network: see Timm & Schinner 2019. The existence of a single network allows the conclusion that the whole Voynich text is the result of a single system. In other words, the system and the structure of the text is always the same, even if the glyph combinations vary. Therefore it is interesting to note that it is indeed possible to group the folios according to there illustrations since they often share similar bigram statistics (This is not true for Herbal folios since it necessary to distinguish between Herbal A and Herbal B).
A possible explanation for this observation is that the scribe wrote the text on all folios sharing the same type of illustrations after each other. If this is true it is possible to use the statistics to reveal the original order for the sections in the Voynich text: "Now, reordering the sections with respect to the frequency of token <chedy> replaces the seemingly irregular mixture of two separate languages by the gradual evolution of a single system from 'state A' to 'state B'. Since words typical for Currier A also exist in Currier B, but not the other way round, it is reasonable to assume that the order shown in Table 2 indeed represents the original sequence in which the sections of the VMS had been created." [Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6].
It is therefore a valuable result that the outcome of the experiment described in Renés blogpost confirms the research results we describe in our paper [see Timm & Schinner 2019].