qoltedy > Yesterday, 03:50 AM
oshfdk > Yesterday, 08:55 AM
nablator > Yesterday, 11:33 AM
(Yesterday, 03:50 AM)qoltedy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If someone could get me an EVA transcription of one of the balneological folios, separated by line and paragraph, as well as the labels simply labeled "Label 1, label 2, etc" then I could test whether my translation method is accurate even without being biased by the images.
RadioFM > Yesterday, 02:23 PM
qoltedy > Yesterday, 04:23 PM
(Yesterday, 08:55 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi and welcome!
How are you going to verify the translation?
If you wish, I can offer you a simpler test to check whether you can identify parts of real Voynich transcription and gibberish. I can give you 10 random lines from the transcription of the manuscript, each of them in two variants: the original and one with word and word pieces scrambled randomly, except for the very start and the very beginning of the line.
If your method can successfully identify in 8 out of 10 pairs which version is the meaningful text, and which one is random gibberish, then it would make sense to think about testing the quality of translation. Note that I won't need you to give us your answers, since in any case it's very easy to cheat on this test by searching for the lines in the transcription. It's only for your own self-evaluation of the method. So, I'm going to give you the test file and after you confirm that you have finished with the identification, I'll give you the answers.
MarcoP > Yesterday, 05:56 PM
(Yesterday, 04:23 PM)qoltedy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In theory, one could verify the translation by seeing if the passage actually makes sense or just outputs gibberish, and whether it can reasonably match the visual content.
oshfdk > 8 hours ago
(Yesterday, 04:23 PM)qoltedy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In theory, one could verify the translation by seeing if the passage actually makes sense or just outputs gibberish, and whether it can reasonably match the visual content. And word definitions would need to be reasonably consistent across the entire text as well.
(Yesterday, 04:23 PM)qoltedy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would appreciate your test with the word scramblings so I can see if my method truly holds up.
cat zl.txt| perl -ne 'print if(/\S{70,}/)' | grep -o -E "\S+$" | grep -v -E '[<{:?]' | shuf -n 10
qoltedy > 8 hours ago
(Yesterday, 05:56 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Yesterday, 04:23 PM)qoltedy Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In theory, one could verify the translation by seeing if the passage actually makes sense or just outputs gibberish, and whether it can reasonably match the visual content.
The two criteria you mention are highly subjective, so they don’t help much for validation. Many medieval texts don’t make sense from a rational point of view, and Voynich images are so obscure that we can argue endlessly about what is a “reasonable match” according to our subjective taste.
It’s much better if one focuses on grammar, a subject about which it’s easier to reach some consensus.
The passage must be grammatically correct according to the grammar of an actual language. The translation is not even interesting from my personal point of view: what interests me is that the “translator” can point out the grammar of the supposed underlying language and why the words appear in that specific order.
hell it self is weary of earth: for why? the son of darknesse cometh now to challenge his right: and seeing all things prepared and provided, desireth to establish himself a kingdom
Does the passage above make sense? We can have different opinions about that. But I think most people would agree that it is grammatical English (e.g. verbs agree with subjects “hell is weary” is OK, “hell are weary” isn’t; "and" connects two words sharing the same form: "prepared and provided" is OK - "seeing all things prepared and self" is not OK).
Similarly, most people would agree that the following passage is not English, but just a word-salad:
earth: darknesse the himself it a now to to challenge hell why? desireth all of of right: is son and and prepared for self weary things seeing cometh provided, kingdom establish his