Hi Don,
I used the "Lite" version as appended to your post above. I haven't time yet to read the full version, but if I am not mistaken, the main point that you put forward is that vords (*) can be decomposed into elementary sequences belonging to several pre-defined groups, and a given group may be presented only once in a given vord.
I'll explain why I turned to Voynich stars (no matter what they actually mean, let's call them "stars" for brevity). These two sets of labels (f68r1 and f68r2) are notable from the perspective that they provide two complete (sub?)-sets of objects, and those objects, whatever they mean and whether they are nouns, adverbs or otherwise, - they are homogenous. The latter means that if (for example!) otol is "bread", then otor cannot be "chair". Or, if ytchody is "breathe", then cphocthy cannot be "blue". (Hope I've made it clear).
So I believe that this set is most valuable to test any morphology hypothesis (such as yours): insofar the objects of the set are homogenous, one would expect coherent results from applying the hypothesis to this set.
I tested your hypothesis on some stars and did not receive coherent results - at least some stars won't decompose. But, as you suggest, I've been not following the full set of the rules that you propose.
If you agree with my considerations above (and, btw, I would be interested to know from other readers as well what do they think of the "star set" as of "morphology testbox" - is this a reasonable idea?) and if you don't mind spending some extra effort, I would suggest the following check:
a) whether all Voynich stars can be consistently decomposed according to your set of rules, to begin with;
b) if the above point a) is OK, then do we observe any systematic morphology pattern in the decomposition results? Like, e.g., all star vords include Group X or something like that. Of course, we need to exclude trivial results from here (like, if I'm not mistaken, any vord should include Group I by definition, so that's trivial).
For convenience, all star names, split by two sets ("dayside" f68r1 and "nightside" f68r2), transcribed in EVA, are found in my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (The list on S.Bax's website has some evident transcription errors).
___
* I've been somewhat aggressively using the term "vord" as a shorthand for "Voynichese word", so that's not a spelling mistake
.
I used the "Lite" version as appended to your post above. I haven't time yet to read the full version, but if I am not mistaken, the main point that you put forward is that vords (*) can be decomposed into elementary sequences belonging to several pre-defined groups, and a given group may be presented only once in a given vord.
I'll explain why I turned to Voynich stars (no matter what they actually mean, let's call them "stars" for brevity). These two sets of labels (f68r1 and f68r2) are notable from the perspective that they provide two complete (sub?)-sets of objects, and those objects, whatever they mean and whether they are nouns, adverbs or otherwise, - they are homogenous. The latter means that if (for example!) otol is "bread", then otor cannot be "chair". Or, if ytchody is "breathe", then cphocthy cannot be "blue". (Hope I've made it clear).
So I believe that this set is most valuable to test any morphology hypothesis (such as yours): insofar the objects of the set are homogenous, one would expect coherent results from applying the hypothesis to this set.
I tested your hypothesis on some stars and did not receive coherent results - at least some stars won't decompose. But, as you suggest, I've been not following the full set of the rules that you propose.
If you agree with my considerations above (and, btw, I would be interested to know from other readers as well what do they think of the "star set" as of "morphology testbox" - is this a reasonable idea?) and if you don't mind spending some extra effort, I would suggest the following check:
a) whether all Voynich stars can be consistently decomposed according to your set of rules, to begin with;
b) if the above point a) is OK, then do we observe any systematic morphology pattern in the decomposition results? Like, e.g., all star vords include Group X or something like that. Of course, we need to exclude trivial results from here (like, if I'm not mistaken, any vord should include Group I by definition, so that's trivial).
For convenience, all star names, split by two sets ("dayside" f68r1 and "nightside" f68r2), transcribed in EVA, are found in my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (The list on S.Bax's website has some evident transcription errors).
___
* I've been somewhat aggressively using the term "vord" as a shorthand for "Voynichese word", so that's not a spelling mistake
.