- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
- Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
-
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Labyrinthinesecurity > 2 hours ago
(2 hours ago)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have been too much of a hater recently, so I will say something nice about machine learning: It has certainly allowed people to post results to this forum
You deserve a thank you for keeping polite, even if ML is clearly not your thing and your consideration for ML practioners is visibly quite low
-
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
dashstofsk > 1 hour ago
(Yesterday, 03:09 PM)Labyrinthinesecurity Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.folios split into two sharply separated groups ... This is not the same thing as the Currier A/B split
Are you proposing an alternative way to divide the text of the manuscript?
The language in each of the main sections
Herbal A1
Herbal B2
Pharma A1
Quire 13
Quire 20
has been seen to be different. Distinct styles, choice of words, preference for a certain prefix or suffix etc. Quire 20 also shows statistical evidence of being in two different 'dialects'. ( See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) It has been proposed that there are six language clusters.
Dividing the pages into A or B has not been sufficient in helping to resolve the big questions about the manuscript. Each section really needs to be looked at separately. The manuscript just does not seem to be divisible into two consistent halves. -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Labyrinthinesecurity > 1 hour ago
(1 hour ago)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 03:09 PM)Labyrinthinesecurity Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.folios split into two sharply separated groups ... This is not the same thing as the Currier A/B split
Are you proposing an alternative way to divide the text of the manuscript?
The language in each of the main sections
Herbal A1
Herbal B2
Pharma A1
Quire 13
Quire 20
has been seen to be different. Distinct styles, choice of words, preference for a certain prefix or suffix etc. Quire 20 also shows statistical evidence of being in two different 'dialects'. ( See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) It has been proposed that there are six language clusters.
Dividing the pages into A or B has not been sufficient in helping to resolve the big questions about the manuscript. Each section really needs to be looked at separately. The manuscript just does not seem to be divisible into two consistent halves.
My study is not helping to resolve any big question about the manuscript, that's right. What it does is propose something much less ambitious, but still useful I think: a mechanical process that outputs the per-folio A/B split that we see, especially in Herbal. -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Labyrinthinesecurity > 1 hour ago
Incidentally, the switch process shows two strong discordances with Currier on folios 87v and 90v (v1+v2). Do you know if these 2 folios are known to be problematic, from a Currier classification perspective? I could not find information so I believe they are commonly considered as "language A". -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Grove > 1 hour ago
Still confused. You seem to suggest that ‘Che’ is more prevalent in language A.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has 10 cho to 2 che You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has 22 cho to 6 che
Which means according to your definition should be a language B instead of A -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
nablator > 40 minutes ago
(1 hour ago)Labyrinthinesecurity Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you know if these 2 folios are known to be problematic, from a Currier classification perspective?
I don't think so... no obvious problem. But everything is problematic with the criteria that Currier defined himself: -dy, unattached finals, etc. See here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
He didn't even mention the prevalence of the glyph bigram ed. -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Grove > 32 minutes ago
I just took the time to look at a couple of folios to see for myself what you’re seeing and both lean heavily toward contradicting your stats. Have you just accepted a machine generated count without checking a bunch of random folios to see if they align with the output? -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Labyrinthinesecurity > 28 minutes ago
(1 hour ago)Grove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Still confused. You seem to suggest that ‘Che’ is more prevalent in language A.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has 10 cho to 2 che You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has 22 cho to 6 che
Which means according to your definition should be a language B instead of A
Thanks for catching what looks like a confusing presentation let me clarify:
the cho counter sums both cho and sho. Likewise for the che counter: it sums both che and she.
f2r: 17 cho+sho, 6 che+she → r_cho = 0.739 (73.9% cho) → Language A
f2v: 21 cho+sho, 4 che+she → r_cho = 0.840 (84.0% cho) → Language A
(40 minutes ago)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(1 hour ago)Labyrinthinesecurity Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you know if these 2 folios are known to be problematic, from a Currier classification perspective?
I don't think so... no obvious problem. But everything is problematic with the criteria that Currier defined himself: -dy, unattached finals, etc. See here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
He didn't even mention the prevalence of the glyph bigram ed.
Thank you for the confirmation! -
RE: Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!
Grove > 12 minutes ago
Isn’t that cho mapped to A opposite of what you said here:
all traditionally classified as Currier A because they fall in the f1-f57 range. But their text is E-dominant, and their plant illustrations show B-type features (daisies, grass, root platforms, unidirectional leaves). Conversely, f87r, f90r, f93v, and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are traditionally Currier B, but their text is O-dominant and their plants show A-type features (stem-root lines, A-type flowers and calyxes).
Isn’t that cho mapped to A opposite of what you said here:
all traditionally classified as Currier A because they fall in the f1-f57 range. But their text is E-dominant, and their plant illustrations show B-type features (daisies, grass, root platforms, unidirectional leaves). Conversely, f87r, f90r, f93v, and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are traditionally Currier B, but their text is O-dominant and their plants show A-type features (stem-root lines, A-type flowers and calyxes).
Ahh, I see I misunderstood gut have misread that. So che dominant is your B and che is A.