Koen G > 07-05-2016, 11:51 AM
-JKP- > 07-05-2016, 12:22 PM
Anton > 07-05-2016, 11:55 PM
MarcoP > 08-05-2016, 08:39 AM
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding the title post by Marco, I would suggest that for such kind of contextual analysis to be systematic, the following should be checked.
Let's say we have two sets of objects (A and B) and a set of contextually homogenous folios further subdivided into two folio subsets (I and II).
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) Are the matches A to I and B to II unanimous? In other words, do objects of the A set not appear in the folio subset II, neither B in subset I?
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) Do matches decribed in item 1) above appear consistently in all folios across subsets? Or there are any folios where the respective objects are absent?
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.3) Are there any other objects beside those belonging to sets A and B that would exhibit similar behaviour in regard to folio subsets I and II?
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.4) Do objects of the A and B sets appear consistently in the same sub-context within a folio (e.g. in the same place of the folio, near similar objects in folios etc.)
(07-05-2016, 11:55 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.5) Are object sets A and B really "sets" (i.e. are they homogenous in themselves), or they are rather artificial constructs by the subjective observer?
Anton > 08-05-2016, 04:10 PM
Davidsch > 26-05-2016, 11:55 AM
GregS > 23-10-2016, 11:14 AM
(07-05-2016, 02:08 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:In natural language we make up names for things like Sagittarius.
If, however, you are describing Sagittarius in a conceptual way, you might name it Voynich-style with something like ani (for animal) + sht (for shoot, as in shooting an arrow).
Quote:In English we say dog for a grown dog and puppy for a young one. In some languages they say dog for the grown dog and young-dog for the young one rather than making up a new word for the young one (they don't have words like kitten, puppy, cub, foal, etc.). This means a large number of concepts are expressed with a smaller number of syllables or words and it seems to work perfectly well.
Diane > 12-11-2016, 11:50 AM
Quote:Voynichese may not be Chinese, of course... [but] If Voynichese is an unencrypted natural language (which, IMHO, is still the most likely alternative), then it is almost certainly not an Indo-European one.
(1998).
Witch Mountain > 12-11-2016, 09:45 PM
(12-11-2016, 11:50 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why not just suppose we are dealing with a mixture of characters and added modifiers? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't see why it should be necessary to imagine an Indo-European language acting like a non-European language, when the simpler answer is.. what Stolfi said.
-JKP- > 13-11-2016, 12:45 AM
(12-11-2016, 09:45 PM)Witch Mountain Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More lengthy answer: Chinese and Egyptian use modifiers because their scripts are not as phonetic as a plain alphabet. Chinese adds modifying characters that "help" you figure out the pronunciation of a word:
女 = nǚ (woman)
馬 = mā (horse)
媽 = mǎ (mother - the "馬" has been added to the woman character "女" to modify its pronunciation)
...