geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2019, 12:47 PM
ReneZ > 23-04-2019, 01:08 PM
Quote:[shckhefy] / [shckhedy]
[chepchefy] / [chepchedy]
[qopchcfhy] / [qopchdy]
[pcheocfhy] / [pcheody]
[ckhcfhhy] / [ckhdy]
geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2019, 02:20 PM
MarcoP > 23-04-2019, 03:56 PM
(23-04-2019, 02:20 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(1) I count 8 word types in this list that end in [-fy]. One of them has the weird ending [-cfy]. If we are going to discount my matches such as [qokeefcy] for [qokeedy], we should also remove endings such as [-cfy] from the data set as well.
(23-04-2019, 02:20 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In sum, 12 of the 15 word types in the list that end in these sequences, have doublets with [d].
Is this not significant?
geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2019, 04:19 PM
(23-04-2019, 03:56 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-04-2019, 02:20 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(1) I count 8 word types in this list that end in [-fy]. One of them has the weird ending [-cfy]. If we are going to discount my matches such as [qokeefcy] for [qokeedy], we should also remove endings such as [-cfy] from the data set as well.
What is this the logic behind this? This seems more retaliation than a serious attempt to test a theory.
(23-04-2019, 03:56 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-04-2019, 02:20 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In sum, 12 of the 15 word types in the list that end in these sequences, have doublets with [d].
Is this not significant?
No, statistics on a handful of carefully cherry-picked examples are not significant.
7 of the 8 word types ending -heeky have doublets in -heedy.
Is this significant?
MarcoP > 23-04-2019, 05:04 PM
(23-04-2019, 04:19 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-04-2019, 03:56 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-04-2019, 02:20 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(1) I count 8 word types in this list that end in [-fy]. One of them has the weird ending [-cfy]. If we are going to discount my matches such as [qokeefcy] for [qokeedy], we should also remove endings such as [-cfy] from the data set as well.
What is this the logic behind this? This seems more retaliation than a serious attempt to test a theory.
The logic is that we should either include such unusual forms entirely, or exclude them entirely. An extraneous [c] without an [h] looks like a scribal error, most likely, or a transcription error, or some such minor issue.
One may argue that we should simply exclude all such forms from the data set entirely, to be consistent.
Or one may argue that we should include them, and consider such near matches as [qokeefcy] / [qokeedy] as significant.
But to argue that we should include them in the data set, and then count [dy] for [fcy] as a non-match, as if it had no significance at all, that I do not consider an objective approach at all.
Quote:(23-04-2019, 03:56 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-04-2019, 02:20 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In sum, 12 of the 15 word types in the list that end in these sequences, have doublets with [d].
Is this not significant?
No, statistics on a handful of carefully cherry-picked examples are not significant.
7 of the 8 word types ending -heeky have doublets in -heedy.
Is this significant?
There is a huge difference between the endings [-fy] and [-cfhy], and your ending [-heeky].
The endings [-fy] and [-cfhy] each consist of two natural Voynich characters.
The ending [-heeky] consists of four or five Voynich characters, or rather 3.5 or 4.5 characters, in which [h] is not even a character, but a final part of the Eva transcription of several different Voynich characters.
I understand if one wants to set aside the cases of [-cfhhy] and [-cfhey]. They are just a single word type each.
But in the cases of [-fy] and [-cfhy], we have 10 of 13 word types with doublets in [-dy].
They are not "cherry-picked", because this includes every word type in the MS ending in [-fy] or [-cfhy] with another gallows character in the word.
Geoffrey
geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2019, 05:17 PM
geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2019, 05:53 PM
RenegadeHealer > 04-10-2019, 08:19 PM
geoffreycaveney > 04-10-2019, 11:44 PM
(04-10-2019, 08:19 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@geoffreycaveney, I'm intrigued. This is truly an innovative solution to the very real problem of the distribution of [f] and [p], which unless adequately explained, is pretty damning to most linguistic hypotheses of the VM.
However, I'm not satisfied with your solution's answer to the question of what [cfh] and [cph] should become when they're not on the first line of a paragraph or the first character of a line. If the distinction between [p] and [cph] is important in Voynichese, and there are minimal pairs that hinge on this distinction, it does not logically follow that the scribe would reduce both of these to [d]. For what it's worth, I'll abide [f] and [p] both mapping to [d], since it's not at all clear that [f] and [p] are not variations of the same glyph. But both of them and their benched varieties all mapping to [d] when not in the first line stretches credibility a bit.
Now, what I would be open to is [cfh] and [cph] regularly mapping to [*d] or [d*] or [*d*], where
[*]is a wildcard representing another repurposed Voynichese glyph, whose identity should be discernible via statistical analysis, if your theory holds up.