(25-06-2022, 04:35 AM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By likening Voynichese to Stenotype, I don't mean to suggest that Voynichese was also stenographic. I'm just struck by apparent similarities in the structure of the writing itself. Stenotype seems to be weird in some of the same ways Voynichese is weird.
Hi, Patrick:
Thank you for bringing the Stenotype example to the board's attention. I agree with you that there are aspects about it that immediately appear parallel, such as the method of potentially "marking" the beginning of all paragraphs in a way that echos a "real" letter but is, in all probability, decidedly not one. That is close to what is going on with the Voynich text, but I'm sure you agree
not quite . . .
There is also the use of groups of letters (some much longer than bigrams) in a way that appears to represent, perhaps, only a single letter of the plaintext. And consistent use of these groups of letters makes for a word structure that is likely, as you say, even more predictable than Voynichese. Again, that is an clear echo of the Voynich text structure, but also again,
not quite . . .
The part where Stenotype and the Voynich text seem to diverge is that the motivation for the approaches in the Stenotype are truly mechanically based -- that is, there exists for each sound (or sound and word position combination) a unique way of keying it so that for a particular key format there would be a
unique set of key hits upon recordation which would produce output that is
distinguishable on "decoding." Thus, the person keying in the information is able to encode and the person reading the paper strip decode without confusion.
I really wish that there was such a mechanical basis for the Voynich text -- and there still may be something mechanical involved. But the strongest argument against the use of mechanical approaches is the time after time examples of not even a single "rule" actually being fully adhered to.
There is always an exception.* These kinds of results suggest human-based, imperfect process steps rather than a chart or grille or wheel or some other mechanical set up. Of course, it could be a combination (allowing human "choices" within the realm of a mechanical process) but even then, I am growing less certain of even this.
On the other hand, what I am becoming more and more convinced of is that for the Voynich text the whole
idea of a requirement for a unique "set of keys" for each underlying sound or letter and as a result production of a distinguishable output for decoding, is just
missing. Like a blind spot in the author(s) minds. Relatively consistent letter forms and certainly particular glyphs associations are really strong (also a requirement for certain distinctive "outward appearance"**), sure, but a consistent system for the whole output is
just not there. The existence of the Currier "languages" is proof enough for me that this idea was lacking.
Please note that I strongly believe this
blind spot is completely understandable, if taken in the context of a world view where consistent spelling is completely optional -- to the point where within the same sentence a word will be spelled more than one way (consistency is simply not a strong point or can't even be said to be a goal). Perhaps even more tellingly, there is this cultural necessity of "earning" the right to be able to understand what is being written only through membership in the group that has been deemed "worthy" of reading the content. Thus, making a cipher that is very, very hard to decipher (even to the point of impossibility) could actually be an admirable part of the end result, as long as the "accepted" group can read it (and if you had a key, you could). If this is the case, the Voynich text has obviously accomplished the author(s)' goal very, very well. To our eternal frustration.
It's a real bummer to not be part of the "in" crowd.
So, that being said, thanks again for the thought experiment. Onward with our continued attempts to find perhaps the right combination of a mechanical process that has been mixed with human, error prone decision-making that hides it -- probably not on purpose (I don't think the author(s) were actively seeking to make it this tough), but only because
the need to not do it the way it was done resides in a cultural blind spot.
Thanks,
Michelle
*And I don't think the commonly tossed in suggestion of "scribal error" is sufficient to explain these. The lack of consistency is somehow part of the process.
**which could just be the results of the other processes -- but it is so distinctive it would not shock me if the appearance is "on purpose."
Finally -- thank you for reading to the end of this little diatribe -- but it is nice to get these thoughts out of my head and recorded and maybe in front of others who are interested in considering.