[Article] [Article]: New article by Layfield & Davis

[Dr. C Layfield]

I am pleased to announce the 2nd article by Layfield & Davis addressing the singulion structure of the Voynich Manuscript.

Link here:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Grove]

There are a number of unique or large gallows throughout the VMS, including some on mid-page paragraphs, so I’m not sure the two referenced in your paper can confidently indicate the starting point of a section. 

If the manuscript was never rebound, isn’t odd that the original binding has the annotation for quire 9 on the wrong page. Assuming the quire mark was present before binding, surely he would have ensured it ended up on a verso like expected?

Quire 13 has the gathering mark on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which suggests the reordering in your paper doesn’t align with the mark’s placement.

[LisaFaginDavis]

The quiremarks were added when the manuscript was bound, which we are suggesting took place a bit later in the manuscript's history. As for Quire 9, I think it's likely that the quiremarks were written when whoever bound it was getting the quires organized, but for reasons unknown it was sewn in through a different fold. As Wladimir has shown, the holes that correspond with the correct valley-fold for quire 9 were never actually stitched.

[LisaFaginDavis]

As for the enlarged glyphs, of course I know there are lots of them. But in Quire 13, f. 76r is the only page that STARTS with one. Same for f. 105r in Quire 20.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The quiremarks were added when the manuscript was bound, which we are suggesting took place a bit later in the manuscript's history. As for Quire 9, I think it's likely that the quiremarks were written when whoever bound it was getting the quires organized, but for reasons unknown it was sewn in through a different fold.

Wasn't the book re-bound some time after it was first bound?  I vaguely recall seeing that claim somewhere...

All the best, --stolfi

[Dr. C Layfield]

The quiremarks were added when the manuscript was bound, which we are suggesting took place a bit later in the manuscript's history. As for Quire 9, I think it's likely that the quiremarks were written when whoever bound it was getting the quires organized, but for reasons unknown it was sewn in through a different fold.

Wasn't the book re-bound some time after it was first bound?  I vaguely recall seeing that claim somewhere...

All the best, --stolfi

No, the book was bound once according to the conservator at Yale.  It would not make any difference regardless to our findings.

[LisaFaginDavis]

The covers were changed, likely by the Jesuits, in the 19th century from wood to limp vellum, but the sewing is from the original binding.

[dashstofsk]

I don't want to devalue your achievement but some evidence for high confoliate and conjoint relationships has previously been given on this forum.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[LisaFaginDavis]

Of course that doesn't devalue our work - it supports it, and vice versa! When two different methodologies reach similar conclusions, it bodes well for both.

[Juan_Sali]

In my opinion the experiment had very low chances of getting any positive result.
There is an implicit condition in the experiment: words in Vochinese are words of an unkown natural language.
In any other case the comparison would be between words in a natural language and something of un unkown nature: 
words in a pseudolanguage, groups of letters if it is a cipher ... 
Can the Voynechese words be words in a natural language? The only option is a nomenclator system and there is nothing 
that supports this idea.