(13-05-2026, 06:52 AM)JoJo_Jost wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But not enough: You can also test this: If you ignore the spaces in Latin and split at random points (keeping the same word-length distribution), the assumed dependency between word beginnings and ends sometimes even collapses to values lower than those in the VMS! (and the same happens in MHD) So if you assume that the tokens are not “words,” your whole neat theory falls apart.
So, according to your logic, would Latin without spaces be “even more artificial” than VMS? The test does not measure a property of the construction. It measures a property of the cutting.
Thus, your findings say something entirely different from what you claim. They demonstrate the conspicuousness of the VMS spaces, not the artificiality of the words.
I really don't understand your argument here, @dashstofsk's result shows that space separated chunks of Voynichese that contain k appear to be built by combining a set of prefixes and a set of suffixes almost uniformly, with no strong preference for any prefix+suffix combinations. As if you had a bag of prefixes and a bag of suffixes and every time you needed to write a *k* word, you would fetch a random prefix and a random suffix. So, if prefix qo is twice as frequent as prefix ol, then for any suffix there will be roughly twice as many qo- words than ol- words. As I understand it, the origin of spaces and whether these chunks are words is irrelevant here. The actual spaces are there in the manuscript, and most of them are very clear, so we definitely can split the text by these spaces and repeat @dashstofsk's result.
I don't think the experiment with Latin splits at random points would produce a similar result. But if you wish, I can run it easily, if you suggest which character or combination to use instead of k and how to split words.