[Blog Post] Peter Bakker on the VMS

[davidjackson]

True, but they have slightly different purposes.
Gemination (if I've spelt that right) is a doubling up (Oh God, Oh God! Why did you do this?), usually for a sudden emphasis or to reinforce the subject.
Epizeuxis is multiple repetition (Oh god Oh god Oh god...) or (be strong! Be strong! BE STRONG!)
IIRC there are a whole bunch of sub-categories from medieval rhetoric, but I can't be arsed to look them up now. They each had their place.

[MarcoP]

One of the examples of "geminatio" quoted by Arbusow is:
Vergil, Aen, 4, 660: Sic, sic juvat ire sub umbras.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the existence of perfect repetitions in the Aeneid.

In proportion to the total of words in the two texts, for each occurrence of perfect repetition in the Aeneid, one finds 25 occurrences in the VMS.
If one also considers quasi-reduplication (consecutive words which only differ by one character), the result is that, for each occurrence in the Aeneid, there are 65 occurrences in the VMS.

Repetition is possible in all languages, I think. What is special in Voynichese repetition is the high frequency with which it occurs, as well as the fact that it involves the most frequent word (daiin) and a tendency of reduplicaiton and quasi-reduplication to appear together.

e.g. <f84v.8,+P0> qokedy.okedy.qokeedy.okeedy

[davidjackson]

Yes, language doesn't work that way. It is either a highly abbreviated form of shorthand that repeats itself, gibberish or an extreme form of eye skip, possible if writing an unknown language.
But we seem to have wandered off topic, probably my fault.

[Aga Tentakulus]

I didn't really mean it that way.
Sometimes the word repetition occurs in the increase.
Example:
Good = good
good good = better
In Turkish, for example, it is somewhat different.
iyi = good
daha iyi = more good = better
But I myself do not think of this kind of word repetition.

The thought always goes through my mind, 1400 and a person where German speaks and writes. Dialect doesn't matter.
If the word only means "all, completely" it also means together and completely.
Do I think in German "jetzt mit allem ganz zusammen mischen"
I can imagine that we'll be hearing word repetition.

How far can I get a German-Latin translation in the 1400s through to the 20th century.
Maybe I just mixed up the endings. talis and tatis/totis. There is only a small difference between 8a///n and 8a////n.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

[nickpelling]

Hi Torsten,

Personally, I don't consider that the airy and non-specific gestures your autocopying papers make in the direction of apparently paralinguistic Voynichese behaviours are sufficient to pass for a genuine argument: still, you have made your bed and will surely sleep soundly in it for years to come.

Thanks for your reply nonetheless.

Cheers, Nick

[Torsten]

Hi Torsten,

Personally, I don't consider that the airy and non-specific gestures your autocopying papers make in the direction of apparently paralinguistic Voynichese behaviours are sufficient to pass for a genuine argument: still, you have made your bed and will surely sleep soundly in it for years to come.

Thanks for your reply nonetheless.

Cheers, Nick

The fact that someone does not come to the same conclusion as you does not mean that his reasoning must be be wrong.

"Torsten's theory is both interesting and sincerely held - he believes it is sufficient to explain many (though not, I believe, all) of the features of Voynichese text. He is an astute observer, and (I believe) has run tens of thousands of statistical tests to provide the evidence supporting (or, at least, consistent with) his views.

But this also offers a splendid challenge to the rest of us: if we can find things that disprove his autocopying theory (and I think there are several areas where Voynichese is not as straightforward as his presentation makes it out to be), then the things we find to do that might well advance our understanding significantly." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[ReneZ]

There is a very long thread dedicated to the auto-copy theory, in which I have presented many specific issues with the theory. So have several others. I think that the discussion is best continued there.
Most of the issues have not been properly addressed.

Now, they are classified as 'opinions' and therefore not worthy of a constructive discussion.
I would then say that opinions of people who like the auto-copy theory should also be discarded, because these are quite obviously only opinions.

[Stephen Carlson]

Timm and Schinner's meaningless-text-algorithm seems to be the only solution to have gained some consensus among other researchers. On the other hand, Friedman came to the final hypothesis of an artificial language of the a priori type, suggesting that he believed that the creator(s) could understand the text. I doubt it will ever be possible to decide between meaningless and undecipherable.

Is there a test that can distinguish meaningless and undecipherable? And if there isn't, what does that mean for us?

For example, what do we do with a plaintext encoded by a one-time pad whose key is irrecoverably lost? I suppose it would be undecipherable, but not meaningless -- even though the meaning can never be recovered.

If we could distinguish whether it had once been meaningful even though we can never read it, what would that tell us? Would it affect how we think of the VM as an artifact (e.g., hoax vs. book of secret science)?

[Torsten]

Is there a test that can distinguish meaningless and undecipherable? And if there isn't, what does that mean for us?

No, such a test doesn't exists. It is possible to use a meaningful text as cover text for secret message and it is also possible to use a text which itself is meaningless for the same purpose. There are only tests for estimating the amount of information a given unreadable text can carry.

For example, what do we do with a plaintext encoded by a one-time pad whose key is irrecoverably lost? I suppose it would be undecipherable, but not meaningless -- even though the meaning can never be recovered.

This depends on the cipher method used as well as on the key. The key must be truly random, as long as the plaintext, never be reused in whole or in part and must be kept completely secret. Since the key must be truly random as a result also the encrypted message would be truly random.

If we could distinguish whether it had once been meaningful even though we can never read it, what would that tell us? Would it affect how we think of the VM as an artifact (e.g., hoax vs. book of secret science)?

There might be indications that a text was meaningful. For instance a nearly random sequence of characters could indicate an encrypted text and if the text is not random we are able to analyze its structure.

[Aga Tentakulus]

     

One must not underestimate simply the cryptology.
Example:
Single character, ending, combination.
Interesting because the combination is behind the ending.
If I take the 8 as "t" and the "9" as um, I get "tum".
I don't have to explain what "tum" means.
Now a "c" as an e, and a ")" as combination abbreviation "t". Already I have an "et".
Everything is possible individually. But all together works too. In this case it is "tumet"
Funny because it is located next to a bathroom. It also means it is nourishing.
For me it is clear, he uses 2 alphabets. The normal and a combination alphabet. And of course also endings.
For the 14th century everything normal, and to learn in one hour.
But that is by far not all.

If I now take just one word, they will moan.
If I use the Google text translator, then they also moan.
Actually they have been moaning for years, but have not yet received an alternative, but a lot of criticism. But unfortunately no educative one.
A good text translator Latin-German would be a start.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)