Diane > 16-04-2016, 09:31 AM
Helmut Winkler > 16-04-2016, 10:33 AM
(16-04-2016, 09:31 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton,
I'm an agnostic about the script. I realise that some of its glyphs resemble the Latin alphabet and others resemble standard abbreviations used in Latin. Others have pointed out similarities to abbreviations used in Greek. Other glyphs - in fact all, I think, find parallels in scripts derived from the Aramaic script.
But I'm fascinated to read Helmut's comment that the glyphs which resemble Latin abbreviations appear in the same relative positions in Voynich 'words'. I should have thought that if the text were enciphered that structural thing would have been less obvious, obscured by the cipher, or that because it was enciphered the abbreviation "9" would be represented by some other glyph. No wonder the text drives the cryptanalysts crazy!
Anton > 16-04-2016, 02:51 PM
(16-04-2016, 08:43 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(14-04-2016, 06:49 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Taking the script at its face value can be put under a very simple test. Let one take the most frequent word - daiin (or any other high-freq word). And then let him match this word or words with the pool of most frequent words in other contemporary works and see if he succeeds.
I don't think there is reason to believe that Voynich 'words' are identical with words in a natural language
Helmut Winkler > 16-04-2016, 03:28 PM
(16-04-2016, 02:51 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm, if we take a script for its face value, then we expect that the chunks of symbols represent words, do we not? Because that's the function that a script fulfils in language.
Those chunks may be words abbreviated or non-abbreviated, but they should be words, within the framework of the "face value" assumption.
Anton > 16-04-2016, 04:45 PM
Helmut Winkler > 17-04-2016, 08:58 AM
(16-04-2016, 04:45 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK then probably the script is taken not for its face value, but with some additional provisions - like adjacent groups of symbols not representing words. It means that we cannot read it - like one can read plain text or abbreviated text. Rather, one needs to decode it.
Anton > 17-04-2016, 01:34 PM
Helmut Winkler > 17-04-2016, 02:24 PM
(17-04-2016, 01:34 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My understanding is that, in an abbreviated text, words (abbreviated) do represent words (unabbreviated). Like, when I write the (abbreviated) word "89", that represents the (unabbreviated) word "Deus".
Is not that correct?
crezac > 17-04-2016, 11:40 PM
(16-04-2016, 03:28 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-04-2016, 02:51 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm, if we take a script for its face value, then we expect that the chunks of symbols represent words, do we not? Because that's the function that a script fulfils in language.
Those chunks may be words abbreviated or non-abbreviated, but they should be words, within the framework of the "face value" assumption.
That is not necessarily true.
Anton > 18-04-2016, 12:00 AM