julian > 07-09-2016, 10:46 PM
(07-09-2016, 10:13 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Do I have that wrong?
Seems so. There definitely are herbal B folios there. A quick look at Rene's site shows that e.g. 26r and 26v are in B. Rene provides a note for each folio whether it is A or B.
{'A1': range(1,26) + range(27,31) + [32,35,36,37,38,42,44,45,47,49,51,52,53,54,56],
'B2': [26,31,33,34,39,40,41,43,46,48,50,55,57] + range(75,85),
'A4': [87,88,93,96,99,100,101],
'BX': [103,104,105,106],
'B': [66] + range(107,117),
'A': [57,89,90,102],
'B?': range(67,75)}
Anton > 07-09-2016, 10:53 PM
don of tallahassee > 08-09-2016, 03:56 AM
don of tallahassee > 08-09-2016, 05:02 AM
julian > 08-09-2016, 05:14 AM
(08-09-2016, 03:56 AM)don of tallahassee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Reference this table:
"Here's what you get if you compare the Herbal folios in Language A (1 through 56) with the Recipe folios in Language B (103 through 116):
(The table shows the top ten words in the combined folios, then broken out into the Language A and Language B folios.)"
I have problems with the above table. I do not understand where the frequency numbers for 4ohii9 come from in the first or third columns. I cannot find any occurrence of the word listed in Professor Stolfi's Concordance. I do not ever remember seeing it in the Voynich Manuscript, but have only transcribed up to about folio 99r so far, so I may not have come to it in the last section yet.
I thought the cause might be misprints (for 4ohcc9), but then noticed the glyph words - which shot that idea down.
Is this a made-up word with made-up numbers? Is someone trying to see if we're on our toes?
How good are the other statistics?
Has anyone actually counted the numbers of times each word occurs? Or even looked to see what the words are?
It would seem hard to get reliable information from the table, in my opinion.
What's going on?
Just wondering.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
(08-09-2016, 05:02 AM)don of tallahassee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my proposed solution the difference between A and B languages might be explained as the use of EVA=d near the right end of a VMS word to signify the quantity one (1). At some point it was gradually dropped as being 'understood' when a Group VI measurement type code was present (minim, grain, scruple, dram, ounce, wineglassful) which led to the shorter spellings of the VMS words. (Conversely, it may have been added if its absence in the beginning created problems - I don't know which came first.)
The author of the VMS seems to always have used the shortest possible spelling of any VMS word that got the info across to the reader. That may have been why the use of EVA=d was dropped (or possibly added).
That's all I think the difference between the two consists of, just a written/understood quantity of one (1).
It is a pretty easy to understand answer to a perceived semi-major problem, though.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
(07-09-2016, 10:53 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And btw it will be interesting to see whether the results will be the same as for the "Herbal A" vs "Recipe B" comparison or not.
(It occurs to me that when performing the "Herbal A" vs "Recipe B" comparison you might have included B folios into the Herbal A set - so please check that).
don of tallahassee > 08-09-2016, 06:40 AM
ReneZ > 08-09-2016, 06:59 AM
Diane > 08-09-2016, 07:06 AM
don of tallahassee > 08-09-2016, 07:28 AM
don of tallahassee > 08-09-2016, 09:15 AM