Rafal > 2 hours ago
Quote:IIRC, you interpret the defining characteristics of Lisa Fagin Davis' scribal hands as reflecting changes in the writing of a supposed single creator over time.

JoJo_Jost > 1 hour ago
Torsten > 15 minutes ago
(4 hours ago)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.IIRC, you interpret the defining characteristics of Lisa Fagin Davis' scribal hands as reflecting changes in the writing of a supposed single creator over time.
(4 hours ago)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree fully that the Herbal B dialect is a massive problem for efforts to attribute substantial differences in dialect vocabularies to nothing more than topical differences in the sections. To the extent that I remain agnostic at best about spaces being word separators I share your skepticism about what applying topic modeling is actually measuring in the text.
It's unfortunate there is no preprint of the Yale work Lisa described in a recent talk to refer to for more detail, but if I understand correctly what they are seeing in their Latent Semantic Analysis results is the same type of transition page-to-page in the Starred paragraph section that is found in texts where there is a narrative/argumentative arc (or that you expect it to show from the self-citation method), but they are not seeing that behavior in the herbal section pages (or in the similar genre texts they used as comparisons). Which is not surprising because there is no sustained narrative flow in something like an herbal or bestiary, it's just discrete descriptions of X, Y, & Z one after another. If that's the case, then that requires explanation in the context of the self-citation method -- why should the LSA results differ between the sections?
I remain unconvinced that the various dialects relect a smooth transition of a single process over time as opposed to discrete distributions with some degree of overlap in their tails, but I'll take a closer look at the material in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. link you provided.
Quote:Interpreting normal texts as bit sequences yields deviations of little significance from a true (uncorrelated)
random walk. For the VMS, this only holds on a small scale of approximately the average line length; beyond positive correlation build up: the presence/absence of a symbol appears to increase/decrease the tendency towards another occurrence
Quote:This means that changes in bigram frequencies are quite normal for the Voynich text. Therefore other criteria would allow to partition the Voynich text further. For instance EVA-m could be used to distinguish between Currier-A folios with EVA-m (bifolio 3/6, bifolio 17/24 ...) and Currier-A folios without EVA-m (bifolio 2/7, bifolio 10/15, bifolio 20/21, f25r/f25v, ...) Or to distinguish between folios with EVA-m in line final position (Currier B) and folios without a preference for a certain line position (Currier-A).