05-09-2025, 07:30 AM
Thanks René, that’s very helpful. You’re right, the lag-1 autocorrelation I used is just the standard Pearson correlation between word length and the next word’s length. With that definition, a value of –0.07 is indeed very close to zero, so it’s more accurate to say the Voynich shows no strong correlation in word length sequence, rather than claiming a clear "zig-zag rhythm".
What I found interesting is that when I scrambled the words within each line, the mean autocorrelation went further negative (about –0.14). That suggests the manuscript isn’t behaving like pure random either, though it’s still unlike natural languages where the value is usually slightly positive.
For reference, the values vary by section:
- Herbal: around –0.12
- Balneo: around –0.08
- Cosmological: –0.13 (but small sample)
- Astronomical: –0.20 (also small sample)
- Marginal stars only: ~0.00
- Text-only: ~0.01
I should say it more cautiously: the Voynich shows no strong correlation, but its profile is not the same as either scrambled text or typical natural languages.
What I found interesting is that when I scrambled the words within each line, the mean autocorrelation went further negative (about –0.14). That suggests the manuscript isn’t behaving like pure random either, though it’s still unlike natural languages where the value is usually slightly positive.
For reference, the values vary by section:
- Herbal: around –0.12
- Balneo: around –0.08
- Cosmological: –0.13 (but small sample)
- Astronomical: –0.20 (also small sample)
- Marginal stars only: ~0.00
- Text-only: ~0.01
I should say it more cautiously: the Voynich shows no strong correlation, but its profile is not the same as either scrambled text or typical natural languages.