@ Stolfi
The problem I see is that you have to make more and more assumptions to support this theory.
Culpeper’s herb book showed a relationship between a word and the word “und”—or between an ending and the word “und.” This relationship exists.
If you look at the structure of the “edy” families, it is broader and deeper.
For example, I could remove all standalone “shedy”s, and the effect would roughly remain the same. Precisely because there are other cases with a glyph preceding them: “dshedy,”, “olshedy,” even “qokshedy,” and other variants. However, the hit rate is low. But even here, one or two additional assumptions could call this problem into question.
Not to mention that the edy family itself is very flexible and, strangely enough, has varying degrees of connection to qo. That’s also tricky.
I could argue that the other token-ending families—namely, the aiin, air, ol, and ar families (roughly one-third of all endings)—have only an extremely low correlation with qo (between 4 and 8%), meaning they essentially reject qo. And that, in turn, naturally argues against such a flexible word as “and.” But there are certainly possible explanations here as well. Although it gets more difficult here, since “and” is supposed to be "very" flexible.
I could then argue that the sequence—that is, everything that comes after “qo”—is also predetermined to a high degree (for example, that “k” follows “qo” 64% of the time, but not just “k”—even “kee” , still qokeed follows, which in turn is followed by “y” and thus “qo”). And that, too, contradicts a word as flexible as “and.”
Note: The figures in these graphs were calculated as a continuous stream without spaces and may therefore vary slightly.
And here, too, you need yet more assumptions to argue this within the context.
So you can make the assumption that qo = “and,” but then you run into problems on other levels, which you then have to support with further assumptions. If you make an assumption on those other levels, you in turn run into problems with the remaining ones...
In my opinion, you’ll find yourself drowning more and more in further assumptions that, in principle, cannot be substantiated—the structure of the VMS is too complex. Explaining all these structures within the context of a language in this natural form, however, will be difficult—very, very difficult...
The problem I see is that you have to make more and more assumptions to support this theory.
Culpeper’s herb book showed a relationship between a word and the word “und”—or between an ending and the word “und.” This relationship exists.
If you look at the structure of the “edy” families, it is broader and deeper.
For example, I could remove all standalone “shedy”s, and the effect would roughly remain the same. Precisely because there are other cases with a glyph preceding them: “dshedy,”, “olshedy,” even “qokshedy,” and other variants. However, the hit rate is low. But even here, one or two additional assumptions could call this problem into question.
Not to mention that the edy family itself is very flexible and, strangely enough, has varying degrees of connection to qo. That’s also tricky.
I could argue that the other token-ending families—namely, the aiin, air, ol, and ar families (roughly one-third of all endings)—have only an extremely low correlation with qo (between 4 and 8%), meaning they essentially reject qo. And that, in turn, naturally argues against such a flexible word as “and.” But there are certainly possible explanations here as well. Although it gets more difficult here, since “and” is supposed to be "very" flexible.
I could then argue that the sequence—that is, everything that comes after “qo”—is also predetermined to a high degree (for example, that “k” follows “qo” 64% of the time, but not just “k”—even “kee” , still qokeed follows, which in turn is followed by “y” and thus “qo”). And that, too, contradicts a word as flexible as “and.”
Note: The figures in these graphs were calculated as a continuous stream without spaces and may therefore vary slightly.
And here, too, you need yet more assumptions to argue this within the context.
So you can make the assumption that qo = “and,” but then you run into problems on other levels, which you then have to support with further assumptions. If you make an assumption on those other levels, you in turn run into problems with the remaining ones...
In my opinion, you’ll find yourself drowning more and more in further assumptions that, in principle, cannot be substantiated—the structure of the VMS is too complex. Explaining all these structures within the context of a language in this natural form, however, will be difficult—very, very difficult...
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)