- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Switch System
- Switch System
-
RE: Switch System
Bluetoes101 > 23-04-2025, 06:52 PM
I see what you are saying You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and thank you for the data it is useful), I think of it a little differently though. I think the text was pre-arranged to look visually pleasing, I don't think they made it visually pleasing on the fly.
How would "many scribes" know what the original scribe found visually pleasing, or their preferences?
EDIT - My thoughts on repeating shapes would also be that they are probably not meaningless. Most text from the time I've seen goes to some length to fit more info into a space rather than less. My instinct would therefore be that "dan" >> "dain" "daiin" "daiiin" etc contain info beyond the scope of using "dan" only. -
RE: Switch System
Bluetoes101 > 03-05-2025, 07:08 PM
I have been looking a little into "B Language". I'm not totally happy with my mappings still in general, but either way there is a significant drop of conformance between A and B, so I can look at that.
The result for B is 89.8%. For these tests I used the whole of Q13.
If I remove the "ed" allowance (not used for "A language") this drops to 64%.
I have built upon my code to make it a bit more useful, it now provides me a plain-text report of non-conformances. This is that list for Q13.
(Top hits shown - click for full)
Most Frequent Non-Conforming Plain-Text Pairs:
lk: 264
lt: 35
hd: 22
Most Frequent Glyphs Involved in Non-Conformance:
l: 365
k: 288
d: 66
t: 45
The 2 main changes from A to B that I can see (other than "ed") is a change in the use of EVA: "l" and an sudden emergence of EVA: "chd".
It seems to me that EVA: "l" takes on a new role in "B language". My initial thought was that maybe its use mirrored "y" now, they seem to be related at least in shape and on the face of it "l" seems to precede gallows a lot now.. however this caused so many other problems the conformance score actually got worse. What "l" actually seems to be doing is acting as EVA: "o".
If I plug that functionality in, and make an assumption that "chd" is "something+e+d" the new conformance score is 94.7% with no real red flags in the report.
Admittedly the mapping is a bit haywire now and needs some cleaning up, it is probably too flimsy to make any real conclusions from but I thought this was interesting anyway. I'll post something a bit more substantial once I have cleaned up stuff best I can. -
RE: Switch System
dashstofsk > 04-05-2025, 10:24 AM
(03-05-2025, 07:08 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 2 main changes from A to B that I can see (other than "ed") is a change in the use of EVA
There are many more differences between languages A and B. Here is one. Lately I have been looking at the curious characters ckh and cth. I have found it useful to generate matrices of frequences of these and sorted by prefix and suffix. For language A I got
For language B I got
One significant difference is that the majority of words in language A that have these characters start with them without any prefix ( and especially with cth ). Their frequency in language A is ~2.6 times that in language B. -
RE: Switch System
Torsten > 20-06-2025, 11:22 PM
(20-04-2025, 10:45 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There's also a system to the parts that aren't strokes though. And even without that (pace Timm et al), this whole thing is much too structured to call it meaningless. Are Roman numerals meaningless because they repeat strokes?
I would argue that a text can be too structured to be meaningful.
Structure is necessary but not sufficient to determine meaning. For example, an empty table in a document is clearly structured — it has rows and columns, perhaps even labeled headers — but without any content, it conveys no meaningful information. With other words, structure refers to how elements are organized or arranged, whereas meaning refers to the significance, interpretation, or purpose conveyed.
Yet, even a grammatically correct sentence can be semantically nonsensical. A well-known example to illustrate this fact is Noam Chomsky’s "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) Although the syntax follows the rules of English grammar, the combination of words creates a statement that defies logical interpretation, highlighting how grammatical structure alone does not guarantee meaning.
Gibberish doesn’t have to be random — and often, it isn’t. One of the most famous uses of structured gibberish is Lewis Carroll "Jabberwocky":
Quote:Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
(see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe
Now, turning to the Voynich text: it clearly does not behave like natural language. Notably, it lacks recognizable word order, and familiar repeated phrases are absent. Yet paradoxically, the text is highly repetitive in other ways — particularly in its word forms and character as well as line patterns.
In meaningful human language, we typically observe a balance of predictability and variation — what information theory describes as moderate entropy. Natural texts are neither too repetitive nor too chaotic; this balance allows for both novelty, which carries new information, and structure, which makes that information comprehensible.
Consider the extremes:- Too repetitive (low entropy): "blah blah blah blah blah" — no new info.
- Too random (high entropy): "xq7z mL#@d vf%pq!" — structureless, hard to decode.
The argument for gibberish is basically that the repetitive voynich text lies closer to the low-entropy end. With other words, the low entropy of the text reflects low informational value — additional sections of the text provide little to no new information, suggesting limited semantic content.
Also the fact that Roman numerals use repetition within a formal, interpreted system doesn't mean that all repetition is meaningful. Repetition must be coupled with shared rules or context to convey meaning. Otherwise, it’s just structure without semantics — gibberish with a rhythm.
However, structure is a key indicator that a text is organized according to underlying rules or patterns that suggest intentional design. The more structured and repetitive a text is, the easier it becomes to identify and formalize those patterns. This is why we are often able to recognize and interpret number systems within texts written in otherwise unreadable languages. Similarly, because the Voynich text exhibits a high degree of internal structure, it is possible to systematically describe its patterns—even if their meaning remains elusive. - Too repetitive (low entropy): "blah blah blah blah blah" — no new info.
-
RE: Switch System
dashstofsk > 21-06-2025, 10:23 AM
(20-06-2025, 11:22 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The argument for gibberish is basically that the repetitive voynich text lies closer to the low-entropy end
Strictly, the dictionary definition of "gibberish" is a adjective referring to speech or talk. The word doesn't seem to be a good one to use when discussing the VMS. Different people here seem to have different understanding what it ought to mean. For the text of the VMS I prefer to use the phrase "an artificial construction fabricated to give the semblance of genuineness".
(20-04-2025, 10:45 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.this whole thing is much too structured to call it meaningless
If Koen was objecting to me using the term "meaningless" then let me explain that I was using that word to indicate that the manuscript was an artificial construction, untranslatable, undecypherable and that therefore the text would have no message or comprehensible substance. Meaningless in that sense. -
RE: Switch System
Aga Tentakulus > 22-06-2025, 10:20 AM
What is vulgar, gibberish and meaningless?
Vulgar, according to UNI, means far from the norm. No matter what language it is.
Marked in red above in German MHD (Middle High German, general official language). ‘hinauf/up’.
For Germans, Alemannic is vulgar and gibberish, but not meaningless.
One man's tractor is another man's donkey.
Above all, language depends on the region and what it means. -
RE: Switch System
Mauro > 22-06-2025, 11:44 AM
(22-06-2025, 10:20 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is vulgar, gibberish and meaningless?
I agree wholeheartedly with you (and the map is very cool, mind to post a link to that website please?), but this does not mean true gibberish does not exist and is not a valid concept.
Vulgar, according to UNI, means far from the norm. No matter what language it is.
Marked in red above in German MHD (Middle High German, general official language). ‘hinauf/up’.
For Germans, Alemannic is vulgar and gibberish, but not meaningless.
One man's tractor is another man's donkey.
Above all, language depends on the region and what it means.
- "Kel fa kì kel kà là" is not gibberish, it means "what's that dog doing?"
- "Lka ap pì elk àk là" is gibberish, it means nothing.
- "Kel fa kì kel kà là" is not gibberish, it means "what's that dog doing?"