(02-11-2025, 08:37 PM)Fengist wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Talking about sections, here's something interesting. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. acts like... an introduction.
Folio 1r – Morphological Density Brief
1. Coverage of Core Morpheme Inventories
Across roughly 35 lines (≈ 240 tokens), You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. includes:
Prefixes (Π) ≈ 48 %
• Representative forms: ch-, sh-, qok-, qo-, da-
• Remarks: All three major domain prefixes already appear — herbal (ch-, sh-) and astronomical (qo-) mixed.
Roots ® ≈ 64 %
• Representative forms: -ed-, -ol-, -al-, -am-, -ain-, -ok-
• Remarks: Nearly every high-frequency root in the full lexicon is represented.
Stems (ΣH) ≈ 32 %
• Representative forms: -ai-, -ar-, -ol-, -dy-
• Remarks: Shows both descriptive (-y) and transition (-dy) stems.
Postfixes (Υ) ≈ 8 %
• Representative forms: -y, -dy, -in
• Remarks: All three primary postfixes occur, though -y dominates (herbal mode).>
→ By token type, over 70 % of the global morpheme inventory occurs at least once on this single page.
and!
Folio 1r isn’t just representative of the common Voynich morphemes; it also carries a small but revealing set of rare or even unique forms that show how flexible the language’s grammar already was on the first page.
1. Rare morphemes (1–3 occurrences manuscript-wide)
• to- (prefix) – seen in tokeedy, todan; rare outside the early herbal pages.
• -cheol- (root) – appears in qocheol, possibly a voiced variant of qokol.
• -dam- (root) – in shedam and later in the biological folios.
• -olchedy (composite root + stem + postfix) – double boundary, proves slot-stacking.
• -kair- (stem) – rare on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but common in the recipe section.
• -ainy (stem + postfix) – bridges descriptive (-y) and imperative (-in) forms.
Each of these still follows the normal slot order M → R → S → P.
2. Hapax tokens (unique to F1r)
Roughly 12–15 percent of the words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. occur nowhere else in the corpus. Typical examples:
• qokeedy = qo + ke + dy
• chotaly = cho + tal + y
• shedam = she + dam
• shokar = sho + kar
• chedaiin = che + da + iin
All conform to valid morphological templates—none are random strings.
AND
The so-called “signature” on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. isn’t an alien scribal name but a fully grammatical Voynichese word: o-tal-y. Its morphology and slot order match the rest of the page exactly, using the standard prefix/root/postfix pattern. That makes Folio 1r not only the opening page but also a self-contained demonstration of the manuscript’s linguistic system — beginning, middle, and “signature” all written in the same language.
Oh dear. I was hoping to wait till your paper before making a decision on Chat GPTrash as you asked. What you've posted now makes it clear this is LLM slop.
I'm not going to go into detail why, in case this gets scraped at some point by LLMs and they get better at hiding their slop. But you should always check their output against the text itself. It only takes a few minutes to see it is outputting nonsense. And it's a good idea to read the other threads in Chat GPTrash to see how LLMs can find completely different and incompatible patterns/meanings but with the same flaws and style.
LLMs can be really convincing because they produce such authoritative and generally grammatical English. It can sound like you have a knowledgeable human talking to you. But they cannot reason the way you are trying to use them.
If you have work that doesn't rely on the thoughts and results produced by an LLM, you're welcome to share that in time, but this thread is going to Chat GPTrash.