ReneZ > 16-11-2022, 11:21 PM
(16-11-2022, 03:09 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Take [cheey], which has 133 tokens in its gallows-less form. If we limit ourselves to discrete words, we have:
[kcheey] 3 and [tcheey] 6
[cKheey] 10 and [cTheey] 13
[chkeey] 13 and [chteey] 1
[chekey] 5 and [chetey] 4
[cheeky] 21 and [cheety] 3
*[cheeyk] 0 and *[cheeyt] 0
The only place in [cheey] where we never find a gallows inserted to form a discrete word is at the very end.
pfeaster > 17-11-2022, 03:25 AM
(16-11-2022, 08:27 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This representation of a 'benched' gallows - the glyph [t]? - is intriguing, for example. What might it tell us about the phenomenon of 'benching' and the integration of the gallows into the text?
This split gallows structure seems most similar to one small but distinct group of words containing two gallows._Along with the various insertions of single gallows into [cheey] I listed earlier, there's also one token of [cTheety]. That could just be a one-off anomaly. The insertion of two gallows seems to become more common, though, when a similarly-formed word contains two [ch] benches in it._So, for example, we have:[chechy] 1*[kchechy] 0, but [kchekchy] 1*[cKhechy] 0, but [cKhecKhy] 1*[chkechy] 0 and *[chtechy] 0[chekchy] 2 and [chetchy] 4[checKhy] 46 and [checThy] 26_[chochy] 5*[kchochy] 0, but [kchokchy] 2 (one has a comma break: [kcho,kchy]); [tchotchy] 1[cKhochy] 1 and [cKhocKhy] 1; [cThochy] 1*[chkochy] 0 and *[chtochy] 0[chokchy] 14 and [chotchy] 11[chocKhy] 17 and [chocThy] 18_Along with [tchotchy], there's also one token of [tchotchey] (the gallows-less [chochey] doesn't occur, but [chotchey], [chocThey], and so forth do)._So with the "base" forms [chechy], [chochy], and [chochey], it seems as though a gallows at the beginning, inserted either as [tch]/[kch] or [cTh]/[cKh], tends surprisingly often to be combined with a second gallows positioned the same way relative to the second [ch] bench._The non-gallows part of the split-gallows structure shown above seem to read [cho.chey], with a space -- a sequence that, like [chochey] all run together, never occurs as such by itself. Despite the space, the split gallows suggests the two "halves" also somehow form a single unit, which makes me suspect the whole structure represents another word in the [chochey] group._So as [kchekchy] is to [cKhecKhy]and [kchokchy] is to [cKhocKhy],maybe [tchotchey] is to what we're seeing here -- equivalent to [cThocThey]?_(Sorry about the strange formatting; for some reason, my paragraph breaks in this post weren't "taking" as usual.)
RenegadeHealer > 17-11-2022, 12:44 PM
(16-11-2022, 05:55 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At the risk of either stating the obvious or otherwise not contributing:
A logical explanation is that the gallows don't function the same each time they are used. Certainly the idea of classifying a word differently depending on whether it exists only with or both with and without a gallows has been suggested before (e.g. the nebulous Grove words).
Is it possible that the actual function of the gallows changes and that change can been seen depending on whether it is a "necessary" component of word to make it a "valid" Voynichese word as compared to a component that can be placed anywhere within an otherwise "valid word"?
I'm sure it is not lost on anyone that the second of these two "functions," actually a non-function, is a null.
Is there some way to test whether the possible function of gallows that move within otherwise "valid" words is acting as a null?
nablator > 17-11-2022, 01:30 PM
(17-11-2022, 12:44 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I’ll take the risk of contributing even less than you, and just point out that in Cham & Jackson’s Curve-Line System for breaking down Voynichese, gallows are “invisible” — non-entities, essentially, which have no effect on a vord’s behavior and parsing by this system.
RenegadeHealer > 17-11-2022, 02:57 PM
(17-11-2022, 03:25 AM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.inserted either as [tch]/[kch] or [cTh]/[cKh]
nablator > 17-11-2022, 03:04 PM
(17-11-2022, 02:57 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.nablator, do you make anything of the mildly astounding statistic that almost exactly half of all tokens contain a gallows, and half don't?Yes, but my interpretation will be in another thread.
pfeaster > 17-11-2022, 04:47 PM
(16-11-2022, 08:52 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So we see that [lchey] exists (and is very common) but [clhey], [chley], and [chely] don't exist and [cheyl] has one token, so assume that the form [Xchey] is not the same as [cXhey] (or other). Now, [l] isn't a gallows, I know, but it forms part of the information we use to understand word structure. We would otherwise be stating that the [chey] in [lchey] is not the same as the [chey] in [kchey]. But is that any better (or worse) than saying that the [chey] in [Xchey] is not the same as [cXhey]?
(16-11-2022, 08:52 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The question is whether these assumptions about analogising word structure are correct and whether they've been adequately tested. I think your hypothesis is a good challenge and, while I believe we have the word structure broadly correct, I'm not sure we can prove it in every instance. Can we break down the question about word structure and gallows insertion into smaller parts?
Koen G > 17-11-2022, 05:19 PM
RenegadeHealer > 17-11-2022, 05:53 PM
pfeaster > 17-11-2022, 05:54 PM
(17-11-2022, 02:57 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.pfeaster, as an aside, what are your thoughts on the idea that [tch] and [kch] might be equivalent to [cTh] and [cKh], respectively? I was much taken by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about the possibility that [f] and [p] might be nothing more than top-line-of-paragraph variations of [ke] and [te].