(26-07-2019, 07:59 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One other interesting aspect of the Zodiac labels in my opinion is the fact that the words tend to be 'grouped' or clustered. Hard to explain precisly, but similar patterns tend to occur in a few adjacent zodiac signs.
Just to give an example, zodiac labels starting with the mildly unusual 'oeeo' and 'oeeeo' tend to be found in a few signs only. Mostly libra, I believe.

In 2015, Darren Worley discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. a table of 360 angels associated with each of the zodiac degrees. The table has 30 rows for the degrees and 12 columns for the signs. The document linked by Darren is no more available, but the same table can be seen You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Even if these are not "labels" (there are no associated images) they are names of personifications of individual zodiac degrees, and the Voynich star-nymphs appear to also play this role.

The table contains repeating names, that typically appear consecutively on a single row, i.e. for the same degree in consecutive zodiac signs. The rate of repetition appears to be higher than in Voynich zodiac labels, i.e. TTR is lower in the angelic table:
Angels: 285/360=0.791
VMS: 263/298=0.882

When consecutive names are not identical, they sometimes differ by one or two characters only: e.g.
Sachiel/Sachael
Athiel/Aphiel
Naphael/Naphadel
Zegiel/Zagiil
Tohiel/Tahoel
The two members of each pair belong to two adjacent zodiac signs.

I don't know how early this list of angels is: it is associated with a treaty known as "Ars Paulina", but the XV Century ms mentioned by Darren (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) does not seem to include the table.
Overall, the table is similar to the first angelic language by Dee and Kelley (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). It could well be that it dates to the same period.

(26-07-2019, 11:39 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....


Maybe a specifically targeted experiment could be to compare the ca. 200 VM small-plant labels to labels in a herbal. I was thinking of the Sloane Tractatus but upon closer inspection it appears that its "labels" are often a full sentence.

I know most of the herbal labels off by heart (the shorter ones) and they aren't much like the VMS.

(26-07-2019, 12:06 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The table contains repeating names, that typically appear consecutively on a single row, i.e. for the same degree in consecutive zodiac signs. The rate of repetition appears to be higher than in Voynich zodiac labels, i.e. TTR is lower in the angelic table:
Angels: 285/360=0.791
VMS: 263/298=0.882

That's a very good comparison set. Since the amount of tokens for the VM is some 20% smaller, TTR will be a little bit skewed in its advantage. Using MATTR (window size 250 in the examples below) compensates for this and brings both values a bit closer together:

Angels: 0.8003
Zodiac Labels: 0.864

Another characteristic of labelese particular to quire 13 is that it is not always employed. Examples f76v, f79r, f79v, f80v. Some pages label consistenly, like f77r, some only parts of the page, like f80r, only the top nymphs get labels, not the rest.

hmmm...and what if you would take random Voynich words from the text, the same amount as the labels, and
of course with a size that has a similar low and high as the labels (I suspect this lies between 5...12 from my head),
and do the same calculations?

(26-07-2019, 12:06 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't know how early this list of angels is

Sloane MS. 2731 (1686) transcribed by Benjamin Rowe.

Quote:The text and diagrams of this book were taken directly from a copy of Sloane Manuscript 2731. The handwriting in this section was small and cramped, even in comparison with the rest of the manuscript. It is very difficult to distinguish between the copyist’s "o", "e", and "a"; thus there is some variation from other published editions in the names of various angels.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(27-07-2019, 01:00 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.hmmm...and what if you would take random Voynich words from the text, the same amount as the labels, and
of course with a size that has a similar low and high as the labels (I suspect this lies between 5...12 from my head),
and do the same calculations?

I was thinking about this too, but how would we interpret the results? Would we expect proper labels' statistics to be similar to, or rather different from that of randomly selected words? This would involve first comparing the statistics of the randomly selected sample to that of full text, to see to what extent the randomly selected words retain some of the full text tendencies. (I'm thinking that if you select 1000 words from the VM, some common VM words will be relatively common in the random sample as well).

My research on the labels is some years old so I am writing from what I still have on it from memory, but if correct and you select random words, there is only on 1 or 2 characters a slight difference to be seen, again I assume that is because there are more nouns in the labels than in the text.
Furthermore if the labels and random words show the same statistics, (and I assume they have based on my memory) this will show that the labels are not different than the text, so it will show: either a) the text contains labels (but in a mutated form), and/or b) the labels are not really labels, but text. 

Note that text and labels are from the same pool, but we do not know what the pool contains. Knowing the difference between 'labels and text' would give more information on the contents of that pool.

(26-07-2019, 11:58 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't it natural that labels should consist of a lot of unique words (if they make sense) ? Of course, the author(s) could have "simulated" this property, but I think that's unlikely.

Indeed, if the text of the MS is meaningful, one can expect the label words to be mostly nouns, adjectives or also numbers. They would also be expected to be largely (or even completely) unique.

I consider that the observed behaviour of the labels  is not quite proof that the MS has meaning, but it shows that there is some 'intention' behind it. The text is clearly not just arbitrary filler.

In researching another blog post I came across an illustration with some clear image labels, the instruments of the Passion:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Looking at those labels, I believe certain endings would be more common than in a Latin full text.