joben > 30-05-2019, 09:32 PM
(30-05-2019, 09:01 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So this is an interesting idea, but I think you would struggle to usefully assign semantic values to the words. There's no way to know what any given word might mean and little internal validation for the guesses you'll be forced to make.
A better idea would be not to assign semantic categories but rather grammatical categories. There are far fewer grammatical categories in a language, so much less precise guesses are needed, and there will be some internal validation of your results because certain grammatical patterns would be unlikely or prohibited.
I recommend reading some of Marco Ponzi's work here You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(30-05-2019, 09:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is one very big problem with the Montemurro and Zanette analysis, namely that the B-language part of the Herbal pages and the A-language part of the Herbal pages are not related to each other. This undermines the tentative conclusion that the selected key words are related to the topic of the pages based on the illustrations.
This is from memory, so a closer look at this question is warranted.
Koen G > 30-05-2019, 09:40 PM
(30-05-2019, 09:32 PM)joben Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have read about the A and B-languages before but I havn't understood it completely.
Anton > 30-05-2019, 09:54 PM
Quote:So this is an interesting idea, but I think you would struggle to usefully assign semantic values to the words. There's no way to know what any given word might mean and little internal validation for the guesses you'll be forced to make.
Emma May Smith > 30-05-2019, 10:39 PM
(30-05-2019, 09:54 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:So this is an interesting idea, but I think you would struggle to usefully assign semantic values to the words. There's no way to know what any given word might mean and little internal validation for the guesses you'll be forced to make.
With the discussed approach, one does not need to assign semantic values, it would be enough to classify each vord into one of several broad categories based on pre-defined quantitative criteria.
-JKP- > 30-05-2019, 10:51 PM
Anton > 31-05-2019, 12:01 AM
(30-05-2019, 10:39 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(30-05-2019, 09:54 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:So this is an interesting idea, but I think you would struggle to usefully assign semantic values to the words. There's no way to know what any given word might mean and little internal validation for the guesses you'll be forced to make.
With the discussed approach, one does not need to assign semantic values, it would be enough to classify each vord into one of several broad categories based on pre-defined quantitative criteria.
The proposed approach is very much aimed at a semantic goal. It's based on the assumption that different sections of the manuscript deal with certain topics, and that some of those topics may be shared between sections. Hence any word falling across multiple sections must fall into one of the shared topics.
The categorisation is based on potential meaning, however broad the categories would be, and by placing a word in one of those categories you are assigning meaning, however broad. Yet there's unlikely to be a good way of narrowing those categories down sufficiently to make them useful.
Linda > 31-05-2019, 01:21 AM
(30-05-2019, 05:17 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's a good idea.
qokain, qol, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., qotedy seem to link B+R together
Emma May Smith > 31-05-2019, 07:24 PM
(31-05-2019, 12:01 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(30-05-2019, 10:39 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(30-05-2019, 09:54 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:So this is an interesting idea, but I think you would struggle to usefully assign semantic values to the words. There's no way to know what any given word might mean and little internal validation for the guesses you'll be forced to make.
With the discussed approach, one does not need to assign semantic values, it would be enough to classify each vord into one of several broad categories based on pre-defined quantitative criteria.
The proposed approach is very much aimed at a semantic goal. It's based on the assumption that different sections of the manuscript deal with certain topics, and that some of those topics may be shared between sections. Hence any word falling across multiple sections must fall into one of the shared topics.
The categorisation is based on potential meaning, however broad the categories would be, and by placing a word in one of those categories you are assigning meaning, however broad. Yet there's unlikely to be a good way of narrowing those categories down sufficiently to make them useful.
There may be such underlying assumption, but it is not required at all. The categorisation would not be based on meaning, it would be based on the meaning-invariant spatial criterion. The entire MS is divided into several parts (groups of folios), and then a vord either falls into a specific part or it falls not.
-JKP- > 31-05-2019, 07:33 PM
joben > 31-05-2019, 10:44 PM
(31-05-2019, 07:33 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Joben, there are certain patterns in how information is presented in medieval herbal manuscripts. Most of them follow four or five "formulas" for presentation.
By creating a concordance of all the token-relationships in the VMS, I hoped to flush out whether there were patterns and what they were.
The result was not what one would expect if the VMS were a substitution cipher (which is how most people interpret it).
So... 1) assuming the text is meaningful, and 2) assuming the text is related to the images, there have to be other dynamics going on and VMS "words" are probably not words in the linguistic sense. If they were, these patterns would have been discernible.
The VMS text is positional. Certain things are always at the beginning, some always in the middle, some usually at the end. The letter frequencies in specific parts of tokens are not normal for natural languages.
The text has been manipulated in some way, so... taking it at face value doesn't work (it would have been long since decoded if this were a simple substitution cipher). I think it is unwise to assume that VMS tokens are words (in the linguistic sense).