Hi Stolfi,
I do not think the structural question in this post has been answered yet?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The first problem is the cross-token dependency around final "y".
In the VMS, the probability that the next token begins with qo
changes strongly depending on the glyphs immediately before the final "y".
For example:
y | qo overall: about 22%
but: (suffix/token)
kedy | qo : about 28%
chedy | qo : about 38%
shedy | qo : about 51%
So the interesting point is not simply that qo can follow y.
The point is that material before the final "y" appears to influence the visible beginning of the next token. In the case of shedy, the following qo becomes more likely than not!
This is difficult to reconcile with a plain phonetic-syllable model. If each Voynich token is one phonetically written Chinese syllable, then an internal element of one syllable should not condition the beginning of the next written syllable to this degree across a visible token boundary.
The second problem is related.
We know: Voynich tokens have only a small number of major visible ending channels.
roughly:
Y : 40.3%
N/in : 15.4%
R/r-ir : 15.3%
L/l : 15.5%
other : 13.6%
A restricted set of endings alone would not be a problem for a Chinese-syllable theory. We have discussed this already.
But the largest ending channel "Y" is not just a simpel ending channel. It is heavily internally structured.
Inside the Y channel, about 67.9% of the cases fall into an EVA E-family.
Typical forms are: e, ee, eee, ed, eed, eod, eeod, d, od, eo
These forms are not freely distributed. They are mostly token-internal (slot 3) not token-final. Also, the preceding signs change systematically:
before simple "e" , ch/sh dominate; ch+sh = 62,8% / k+t = 28,1%
before "ee/eee" , k/t dominate. k+t = 62,3% / ch+sh = 26,3%
So the problem is not just that Voynich tokens have few endings.
The problem is that the largest ending channel has a nested internal structure:
"preceding glyph/context + E-family + final y/dy"
And this nested structure can then affect the beginning of the next token, as in the
kedy / chedy / eedy / shedy -> qo examples above.
That's the part that, in my opinion, doesn't fit into a simple Chinese syllable model.
And:
If the E-family is the Chinese vowel or final nucleus, then what is the following y/dy ?
If y/dy is the Chinese final, coda, or tone marker, then what is the E-family before it?
I don't speak Chinese, but I don't think that fits with Chinese theory. Or am I wrong?
I do not think the structural question in this post has been answered yet?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The first problem is the cross-token dependency around final "y".
In the VMS, the probability that the next token begins with qo
changes strongly depending on the glyphs immediately before the final "y".
For example:
y | qo overall: about 22%
but: (suffix/token)
kedy | qo : about 28%
chedy | qo : about 38%
shedy | qo : about 51%
So the interesting point is not simply that qo can follow y.
The point is that material before the final "y" appears to influence the visible beginning of the next token. In the case of shedy, the following qo becomes more likely than not!
This is difficult to reconcile with a plain phonetic-syllable model. If each Voynich token is one phonetically written Chinese syllable, then an internal element of one syllable should not condition the beginning of the next written syllable to this degree across a visible token boundary.
The second problem is related.
We know: Voynich tokens have only a small number of major visible ending channels.
roughly:
Y : 40.3%
N/in : 15.4%
R/r-ir : 15.3%
L/l : 15.5%
other : 13.6%
A restricted set of endings alone would not be a problem for a Chinese-syllable theory. We have discussed this already.
But the largest ending channel "Y" is not just a simpel ending channel. It is heavily internally structured.
Inside the Y channel, about 67.9% of the cases fall into an EVA E-family.
Typical forms are: e, ee, eee, ed, eed, eod, eeod, d, od, eo
These forms are not freely distributed. They are mostly token-internal (slot 3) not token-final. Also, the preceding signs change systematically:
before simple "e" , ch/sh dominate; ch+sh = 62,8% / k+t = 28,1%
before "ee/eee" , k/t dominate. k+t = 62,3% / ch+sh = 26,3%
So the problem is not just that Voynich tokens have few endings.
The problem is that the largest ending channel has a nested internal structure:
"preceding glyph/context + E-family + final y/dy"
And this nested structure can then affect the beginning of the next token, as in the
kedy / chedy / eedy / shedy -> qo examples above.
That's the part that, in my opinion, doesn't fit into a simple Chinese syllable model.
And:
If the E-family is the Chinese vowel or final nucleus, then what is the following y/dy ?
If y/dy is the Chinese final, coda, or tone marker, then what is the E-family before it?
I don't speak Chinese, but I don't think that fits with Chinese theory. Or am I wrong?