• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

[split] The Zipf law and the Voynich Manuscript

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • [split] The Zipf law and the Voynich Manuscript
• [split] The Zipf law and the Voynich Manuscript

• RE: Some letters aren't letters

  -JKP- > 26-02-2017, 12:11 AM

  (25-02-2017, 02:50 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You could say that a different process was used for the labels.  But why would someone do that?  Was someone in the 15th century aware of Zipf's law and where it should and should not apply in meaningful texts?

  
  
  Why would someone do that? Here's one possible reason...
  
  A label next to a drawing is too easy to decode. It's a clue if there's an underlying cipher. It's the first thing most people try to decode. If the creator was aware of this then maybe the VMS "labels" were created with some of the same elements, but in a different way (or in a meaningless way, but hopefully just in a different way).
  
  
  If however, the text is meaningful and the labels are constructed the same way (I hate to say encoded), then the person creating them had great confidence in the system.

• RE: Some letters aren't letters

  ReneZ > 26-02-2017, 08:48 AM

  When I wrote:
  
  
  

  Quote:The interesting part is not that the main text follows Zipf law, but that the main text does while the labels do not.
  
  This means that not the same process was followed for generating or writing the main text and for the labels.

  
  I thought it was obvious, but a bit of explanation seems to be a good idea.
  
  I use the term 'process' in a very general way.
  
  The process involves a person, pen in hand, who writes one character after the other on the parchment. The resulting text is the output of the process.
  
  One type of process could be: writing a running text in some language, with implied rules about grammar and syntax. 
  
  Another process could be: adding single words to illustrations indicating what the illustration is about.
  
  Many of the properties of the two outputs will be different, even though the words in the second process are likely to occur in the the output of the first process.
  
  A third process could be: moving a Cardan grille over a large table and copying the resulting character sequences  to the parchment.
  A fourth: the auto-copying hypothesis of Torsten Timm.
  
  In the 'optimistic' scenario that that the Voynich MS contains a meaningful text that is just waiting to be retrieved, the first two processes could be the basis for the main text and the labels.
  The fact that the observed differences exist do not prove that the text is meaningful, but at least it is compatible with that, and in my opinion it is a sign of planning and of non-arbitrariness.
  
  In the case of the Cardan grille and the auto-copying hypothesis, it is not immediately clear why the Zipf law would be obeyed, but it is conceivable. However, what is not explained is that it appears in the main text but not in the labels.
  It would require a dedicated effort by the author to 'do something different'.
  
  One can safely exclude the possibility that the author understood the Zipf law and deliberately broke it for the labels.
  
  Another interesting property of the label words (and I concentrate on the zodiac and pharma labels - I have barely looked at the others) is that they do largely occur in the main text (thanks to Marco for confirming this), but do not include some of the most frequent words. No label (from memory) just says chol , daiin  or chedy. This is also a 'good sign' for the meaningful text scenario. The running text is likely to include words like articles, prepositions and verbs that are less likely candidates as labels.
  
  Just as a historical footnote, the solution proposed by John Stojko works by ignoring all spaces in the manuscript, assigning consonants to all symbols, and inserting vowels and re-introducing spaces. The resulting text is proposed to be (old) Ukrainian. This solutions runs over the plain text, but also over the concatenated labels, without any distinction. This implies one and the same process for the running text and the labels, which is not compatible with what is observed. (The much bigger problem is that it does not explain the word structure of Voynichese).

• RE: Some letters aren't letters

  Torsten > 26-02-2017, 11:20 AM

  (26-02-2017, 08:48 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the case of the Cardan grille and the auto-copying hypothesis, it is not immediately clear why the Zipf law would be obeyed, but it is conceivable. However, what is not explained is that it appears in the main text but not in the labels.
  It would require a dedicated effort by the author to 'do something different'.

  
  For the auto-copying method it is something different if you write text or if you write labels. In one case  you can copy words from previous lines in the other case you have some distance between text and the place you write. Most of the time you have only previous labels as source words available. Moreover if the labels are arranged in circular form you would probably turn the page while write the labels. This makes it harder to copy labels which are just up side down. Therefore it is expected for the auto-copying hypotheses that more unique words are used as labels.
  
  

  Quote:One can safely exclude the possibility that the author understood the Zipf law and deliberately broke it for the labels.

  
  Agreed.
  
  

  Quote:Another interesting property of the label words (and I concentrate on the zodiac and pharma labels - I have barely looked at the others) is that they do largely occur in the main text (thanks to Marco for confirming this), but do not include some of the most frequent words. No label (from memory) just says chol , daiin  or chedy. This is also a 'good sign' for the meaningful text scenario. The running text is likely to include words like articles, prepositions and verbs that are less likely candidates as labels.

  
  
  Why do you pick [chol], [daiin] and [chedy]? Only [daiin] is common for the whole manuscript. [chol] is typical for Currier A and [chedy] is only frequently used in Currier B. But labels occur mostly in the Pharmaceutical section, the Astronomical section and the Cosmological section. Even if the Pharmaceutical section is counted as Currier A this are just the sections between Currier A and B. The pages in Currier B only rarely use labels. Therefore the only place where you can expect a word like [chedy] used as label is the Biological section. And in the Biological section you can find at least a label [otol shedy] in <f77v.L.1>.
  
  There are  three labels using [daiin]:
  <f67r2.X.6>      tol.daiin=
  <f68v2.R.12>     dchedal.daiin=
  <f72r3.S1.9>     oteey.daiin=
  
  There are also labels similar to [daiin] [chol] and [chedy]:
  <f68r1.S.17>     ordaiin=
  <f68r2.S.2>      odaiin=
  <f75r.L.7>       dainy=
  
  <f68r2.S.5>      dchol=

• RE: Some letters aren't letters

  Sam G > 26-02-2017, 02:15 PM

  (26-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Only [daiin] is common for the whole manuscript.
  
  ...
  
  There are  three labels using [daiin]:
  <f67r2.X.6>      tol.daiin=
  <f68v2.R.12>     dchedal.daiin=
  <f72r3.S1.9>     oteey.daiin=

  
  This is another point on which what we see in the VMS is consistent with a meaningful text.  In an English text, for instance, it would be nonsensical for common words like "the", "for", "to", etc. to occur by themselves in labels in illustrations, but it would be perfectly normal for them to occur as a part of a compound phrase containing other words.

• RE: Some letters aren't letters

  Torsten > 27-02-2017, 08:24 AM

  (26-02-2017, 02:15 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (26-02-2017, 11:20 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Only [daiin] is common for the whole manuscript.
  
  ...
  
  There are  three labels using [daiin]:
  <f67r2.X.6>      tol.daiin=
  <f68v2.R.12>     dchedal.daiin=
  <f72r3.S1.9>     oteey.daiin=

  
  This is another point on which what we see in the VMS is consistent with a meaningful text.  In an English text, for instance, it would be nonsensical for common words like "the", "for", "to", etc. to occur by themselves in labels in illustrations, but it would be perfectly normal for them to occur as a part of a compound phrase containing other words.

  
  The usage of [daiin] is not consistent with a common word like "the", "and", "for" or "to". There are pages full of text without any [daiin] like f75r, f79v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). There is also a page like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with only 57 words but with 11 instances of [daiin]. Moreover on most pages [daiin] do co-occur with similar words like [aiin], [dain] or [ain] (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
• Next Oldest Next Newest