Emma May Smith > 13-05-2020, 05:16 PM
elieD > 13-05-2020, 11:22 PM
(12-05-2020, 01:13 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-05-2020, 11:49 AM)elieD Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I like the idea that the manuscript is two people transcribing what an other was saying, without them necessarily knowing the language of this third person
I like the idea, but I'm not sure I like its implications. Transcription of a language one doesn't understand is almost always fairly lossy. I once briefly worked for a hospital that hired a second-rate medical transcription service. This service was based in a foreign country, where English is spoken widely but not natively. The company clearly did not vet its scribes for fluent English comprehension. Some of the mistakes I would find in the transcriptions of my notes were subtle and understandable, but made a crucial difference in the meaning. The issue was usually the scribe being unable to reliably distinguish between very similar sounds, that his/her native language didn't distinguish. "He had a pain" became "He had a pen", in one memorable example. Usually these problems could be sorted out and corrected by a native speaker who knew the context well. But when we're dealing with the VMs, we have very little context, and no indication of whether there are any native speakers of the original language behind it. If Voynichese really is a case of mis-transcription of a poorly understood language, it's not at all clear to me that the original text is recoverable.
MarcoP > 18-05-2020, 01:42 PM
ReneZ > 18-05-2020, 08:40 PM
Emma May Smith > 19-05-2020, 06:52 PM
MarcoP > 19-05-2020, 08:48 PM
Emma May Smith > 19-05-2020, 09:21 PM
ReneZ > 19-05-2020, 09:29 PM
MarcoP > 20-05-2020, 03:35 PM
Torsten > 20-05-2020, 08:56 PM
(19-05-2020, 08:48 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Following Rene's suggestion, I added CUVA:EO EVA:eo (but not including EVA:eeo which is represented as CUVA:UO). Here it is displayed together with CUVA:SO / EVA:cho.
The new measure separates the Pharma/Recipes section from (most of) Herbal A, showing the variability in Scribe 1's output mentioned by Emma and not detectable from the previous graphs. The bizarre f58 is here shown not to be similar to Pharma/Recipes after all: it appears closer to the main group of Currier B. But from the first graph in the previous post, as also observed by Rene, we know that f58 greatly differs from Currier B on the basis of EVA:ed.