Torsten > 21-06-2019, 10:18 PM
(21-06-2019, 07:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-06-2019, 02:49 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... I find your paper's failure to cite both his work on the subject and his proposed explanations quite incomprehensible, sorry. :-(
I have to disagree with this. The footnote is fully appropriate in my opinion.
Currier's work in general is amply cited in the paper. His specific opinion on the relation between word ends and word starts is strictly related to one part of the MS, namely the Biological pages. He presents the stats. He then says that he cannot think of any linguistic explanation.
Emma May Smith > 21-06-2019, 11:54 PM
(21-06-2019, 02:49 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did you know that Prescott Currier got "an A.B. in Romance Languages at George Washington University, and a Diploma in Comparative Philology at the University of London"? He was also a wartime codebreaker, so there was a lifetime of both linguistic and codebreaking skills behind his opinions.
As such, I would expect he fulfils all the criteria you could possibly have for someone able to put forward a valid opinion on this kind of phenomenon. So I find your paper's failure to cite both his work on the subject and his proposed explanations quite incomprehensible, sorry. :-(
I don't think "digits" falls even remotely under point 4, again sorry.
Emma May Smith > 22-06-2019, 12:28 AM
(21-06-2019, 10:18 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Currier argues that the beginning of a word is related to the suffix of a previous word and that natural language doesn't behave this way.
Quote:Also Emma and Marco come to the conclusion "that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first." (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15).
Quote:An example for natural language given in the paper is that the "preceding vowel before a word starting with a vowel is a common phenomenon" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 15)
Quote:and the authors argue that "Glyphs at the start and end of words could be nulls intended to obscure the underlying text" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18).
Quote:Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?
Quote:Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?
Quote:Much more can be said about consecutive words in the Voynich manuscript.
Torsten > 22-06-2019, 07:42 AM
(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, Currier says, "In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next." This is a bizarre statement to make, given that English does just this: a pear and an apple. It's facilely easy to disprove.
(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?
I don't understand your point. Our paper is discussing the relationships between glyphs, not words.
(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?
This is a fair point, but I think you're being very harsh that it constitutes a "mystery". Word break combinations in the Voynich text are rather more predictable than in Latin and English, and a bit more predictable than in Italian. Yet the differences between Latin and English on one hand, and Italian on the other, demonstrate that there is no simple level of predictably which describes a natural language. The conclusion at the end of the manuscript comes from dismissing other potential causes of word break combinations and accepting a linguistic one. It's a summary of all the evidence and arguments, not only predictability.
Emma May Smith > 22-06-2019, 05:36 PM
(22-06-2019, 07:42 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, Currier says, "In no language I know of does the suffix of a word have anything to do with the beginning of the next." This is a bizarre statement to make, given that English does just this: a pear and an apple. It's facilely easy to disprove.
To disprove Currier you would need an example like "an apear and an apple".
Quote:(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Another point is that Currier was studying the usage of 'words' before he discussed "Effects of the Ending of One 'Word' on the Beginning of the Next 'Word'". The paper does this the other way around. It examines the relation between glyphs but discusses the relation between words. How can you discuss something without studying it?
I don't understand your point. Our paper is discussing the relationships between glyphs, not words.
You are using a magnifying glass and what you see is a yellow spot. Then you argue that maybe the wall is yellow, or maybe there are some yellow squares, or maybe it is a large painting of Salvador Dalhi.
Quote:(22-06-2019, 12:28 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Moreover the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). It remains a mystery to me why the described observations should support "the possibility that the Voynich text is written a phonetically written language" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 18)?
This is a fair point, but I think you're being very harsh that it constitutes a "mystery". Word break combinations in the Voynich text are rather more predictable than in Latin and English, and a bit more predictable than in Italian. Yet the differences between Latin and English on one hand, and Italian on the other, demonstrate that there is no simple level of predictably which describes a natural language. The conclusion at the end of the manuscript comes from dismissing other potential causes of word break combinations and accepting a linguistic one. It's a summary of all the evidence and arguments, not only predictability.
There are relevant differences between Currier A and B. With other words your discussion part is based on a single observation and this observation is not consistent for the whole text.
Torsten > 22-06-2019, 07:38 PM
(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(22-06-2019, 07:42 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To disprove Currier you would need an example like "an apear and an apple".See our paper, page 19, where we talk about initial consonant mutations in Welsh (they're present in other Celtic languages too.)
(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:You are using a magnifying glass and what you see is a yellow spot. Then you argue that maybe the wall is yellow, or maybe there are some yellow squares, or maybe it is a large painting of Salvador Dalhi.
Yes, this is inductive reasoning. We move from the specific to the general. We're using observations on specific aspects of the text to construct a more general theory of the whole. This is a single paper, however, and provides only evidence and support, not a complete theory and its proof.
(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:There are relevant differences between Currier A and B. With other words your discussion part is based on a single observation and this observation is not consistent for the whole text.
We try to explore our observations in a couple of different ways, to check how strong and consistent they are. We acknowledge they're not always as strong or consistent as we would like. We note some exceptions, such as the difference between Currier A and B, and the position of [l]. Our conclusions are not a solution but rather a summary of our research on the topic. We try to point toward the best explanation we can.
(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be happy to listen to arguments why a different explanation is better. But we must explain word break combinations. They are real phenomena and any theory which doesn't account for them must be wrong. Even a tentative explanation is better than complete ignorance.
MarcoP > 23-06-2019, 06:49 PM
(22-06-2019, 07:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(22-06-2019, 05:36 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be happy to listen to arguments why a different explanation is better. But we must explain word break combinations. They are real phenomena and any theory which doesn't account for them must be wrong. Even a tentative explanation is better than complete ignorance.
My answer is that it is just another example of local repetition. If the the self-citation method was used to generate the text it was only possible to copy an element of a word already written. Therefore it [is] expected that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first. There is no contradiction between your paper and the self-citation method.
(22-06-2019, 07:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We argue that "the shape of a glyph must be compatible with the shape of the previous one and is also influenced by its position within a word or a line." (Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10). Did you note that one outcome of your Charts 4.1. and 4.2. is that similar glyphs are related to each other? How do you explain that <ch> behaves like <sh>, <a> like <y>, <r> like <s>, <m> like <n>, and <o> like <y>?
(22-06-2019, 07:38 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.See also Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 10: "It even happens that the first glyph of a word is suggested by the last glyph of the previous word (Currier 1976): “‘Words’ ending in the <y> sort of symbol, which is very frequent, are followed about four times as often by ‘words’ beginning with <qo>.” This feature explains why the prefix <qo> becomes more frequent at the same time as words similar to <chedy> are used more frequently."
Torsten > 24-06-2019, 10:45 AM
MarcoP > 24-06-2019, 01:05 PM
(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems that you believe that if you want to demonstrate that the VMS represents language it is only necessary to point to a feature shared by the VMS-text and a language. But not every thing with some wheels is a cart and not every being with two legs is a duck. With other words you can't cherry pick the features you want to compare. It is therefore problematic that your paper does not address known counter arguments to the natural language hypothesis.
(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Moreover you come yourself to the conclusion that "the second glyph in a combination depends on the first". You don't address the objection of Currier that it is typical for natural languages that the suffix of a word depends on the beginning of the next word. This means that you present in fact a counter argument against the natural language hypothesis without discussing this point.
Quote:We can thus only tentatively say that the second glyph in a combination depends on the first.Even if this hypothesis seems to us the best explanation for the observations, an influence in the other direction is also possible. It could also be that different causes concur to the phenomenon. It would be great to be in the position to make a stronger statement, but we are not. So, no "conclusion" yet.
Quote:An example is the definite article y which causes the soft mutation: merch (‘daughter’) becomes y ferch, and draig (‘dragon’) becomes y ddraig.
(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another point is that the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). In my eyes it is relevant that this observation is not consistent for the whole text. You also argue that such differences are relevant in your eyes: "There would need to be a separate cause for the increase in the number of words beginning with [o] and an additional process to bring them into the combination [n.o]" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But you only use this difference to argue against the idea that the "arrangement of whole words creates certain word-break combinations" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But how do you explain this observation for the natural language hypothesis?
(24-06-2019, 10:45 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You say that you prefer to believe that the VMS contains meaningful words. It will not surprise you that such a statement does not convince me.
Torsten > 24-06-2019, 01:43 PM