• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Independent Analysis Identifying Languages Beyond Currier A/ B, compared to René Zand

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • Independent Analysis Identifying Languages Beyond Currier A/ B, compared to René Zand
• Independent Analysis Identifying Languages Beyond Currier A/ B, compared to René Zand

• RE: Independent Analysis Identifying Languages Beyond Currier A/ B, compared to René Zand

  npcompl33t > Yesterday, 10:55 PM

  (Yesterday, 10:20 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (17-09-2026, 01:01 AM)npcompl33t Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The second is that the selected bigrams could completely miss large outliers, for example, as is the case with f58.

  
  The frequency of "al" alone should set f58 apart: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Nick Pelling wrote about the peculiarities of f58: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Yes, I 100% agree, which is why I was surprised that Rene didn't identify it despite using -al as a part of his classification scheme for his 'C' grouping.
  
  I have read that thread before and in fact, it is one of the reasons I decided to make this post at all. The thread's premise is that f58 is an 'intermediate' language, and marco P shows the PCA bigram chart that seems to show f58 in the middle of A and B sections.
  
  However, that chart is showing only the 1st and 2nd dimensions, which together only capture something like 20% of the total variance. The issue is that the PCA is attempting to explain variance across the entire manuscript, and since f58 is only 2 pages, the features that distinguish it don't rank as high. Checking the 3rd dimension alone shows that it is not really 'in between' A and B, but rather off on its own.

• RE: Independent Analysis Identifying Languages Beyond Currier A/ B, compared to René Zand

  Mauro > 2 hours ago

  (Yesterday, 10:11 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It doesn't read too AI to me, which is why I wondered if anyone is able to comment on the research.

  
  I would like that too. I have very broadly understood the method, but most of the details are too much for me and I cannot say anything about the validity of the results. I have to say, they are not easy to understand (maybe a picture would be worth a thousand words...) and to put in context, however they look interesting and I'd like them to be properly assessed.
  
  One random question for @npcompl33t
  

  Quote:6. f58
    RZ designation: A
    Divergence from early Herbal A: 100%; from Herbal B: 75%

  
  By f58 do you mean You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. + f58v? And, what's its divergence from the other partitions you identified (Late herbal A + Pharma, Herbal B1 etc.)?
• Next Oldest Next Newest