farmerjohn > 17-09-2016, 10:58 AM
Searcher > 17-09-2016, 11:22 PM
(17-09-2016, 10:58 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I had a short look at Yulia May's key, and found only one word for which we have the same translation: oty - omnis. That's not very much...
farmerjohn > 18-09-2016, 10:58 AM
(17-09-2016, 11:22 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(17-09-2016, 10:58 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I had a short look at Yulia May's key, and found only one word for which we have the same translation: oty - omnis. That's not very much...
Hello, farmerjohn!
Actually, oty in my interpretation has a few alternates for now, one of them is "opem" and can be omnem, labem, libum, limum, lupum, lobum. I also have a big problem with short words, as I get too many alternates from them. I suppose they may differ by some details in characters to divide one variant of an interpretation from another. My most favourite examples are "o"s: some under the line, some - with a bar, open-loop etc.), but it is still in the process.
A common thing in our theories is that we consider it enciphered Latin text, partially abjad with abbreviations, substituted by one or a few glyphs of the cipher, in particular, y (at a beginning) - com, cum, con... r - r* are also in my key.
Searcher > 18-09-2016, 07:47 PM
(18-09-2016, 10:58 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello, Searcher.
Ambiguity is certainly the most unpleasant problem for key like ours. It makes them unfalsifiable - nightmare for real scientist
For your solution I strongly suggest to calculate Latin letter frequencies via your key (which I did via my) and in particular to calculate first letter frequency (which I didn't).
These calculations allowed me to understand that t stands for two m/n's and l also is m/n and sh is pr. I also saw that q is q/k and x is z is absolutely acceptable.
Quote:These calculations allowed me to understand that t stands for two m/n's and l also is m/n
Quote:I would advise every Searcher and Researcher to consider possibility that o is u/v/b and pronounced like [w]. This immediately yields that q is q. Then it follows that qo- is aqua- and with no effort at all we got theory explaining why some qo- words are often in Lang B, but not in Lang A.
farmerjohn > 19-09-2016, 08:09 AM
farmerjohn > 19-09-2016, 09:17 AM
(18-09-2016, 07:47 PM)Searcher: Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So I take the part of a sentence
... ol kedy okedy qoky okeedy qokey qokedy okedy qokeedy okeedy shedy qoky...
and using your key I try to decipher this part:
um/un dclus(is) udclus(is) aqu(a)dus(is) udcclus(is) aqu(a)dcus(is) aqu(a)dclus(is) udclus(is) aqu(a)dcclus(is) udcclus(is) prclus(is) aqu(a)dus(is)...
What can you say about this?
-JKP- > 19-09-2016, 09:24 AM
(19-09-2016, 08:09 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Searcher, try to unite Latin letters in groups and calculate frequency for the whole group, not for separate symbols. In your case you may define group "vowels".
It's great if you get few translations for Voynich words, I often get 50+ possibilities Life without vowels is so... undetermined.
As for m/n calculations. I considered that y gives 1 m/n, yl gives 2, yt gives 3. In general case, letter doublings were not taken into account, d can stand both for l and for ll, but only 1 piece is added to stats. Yes, we loose a bit in precision, say 1% or even 2%, but that's ok. It's only an argument, not a proof.
But if you get some 10% difference, then something is wrong with the key. That happened to me at one stage: mn share among all consonants should be 18%, but my key gave only 10%. This led me to conclusion that t stays strictly for 2 mn's (it was only conjecture before calculations) and there should be another letter for mn - and this is l
farmerjohn > 19-09-2016, 10:23 AM
(19-09-2016, 09:24 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(19-09-2016, 08:09 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Searcher, try to unite Latin letters in groups and calculate frequency for the whole group, not for separate symbols. In your case you may define group "vowels".
It's great if you get few translations for Voynich words, I often get 50+ possibilities Life without vowels is so... undetermined.
As for m/n calculations. I considered that y gives 1 m/n, yl gives 2, yt gives 3. In general case, letter doublings were not taken into account, d can stand both for l and for ll, but only 1 piece is added to stats. Yes, we loose a bit in precision, say 1% or even 2%, but that's ok. It's only an argument, not a proof.
But if you get some 10% difference, then something is wrong with the key. That happened to me at one stage: mn share among all consonants should be 18%, but my key gave only 10%. This led me to conclusion that t stays strictly for 2 mn's (it was only conjecture before calculations) and there should be another letter for mn - and this is l
The problem with your suggestion is that searcher is expanding the Latin abbreviation glyphs into a variety of prefixes/suffixes depending on context. Which means the VMS glyph could be two, three, or four different sets of letters in Latin. How do you calculate the frequency of the letters in a paragraph or manuscript when each word-token can have several different interpretations?
In other words, if you have something like yHeey and the y is an abbreviation that behaves differently whether it's at the beginning or end and could stand for two letters or three (in three or four different combinations each), you would have to do frequency analyses for all the different possibilities. Add the EVA-r, EVA-e and EVA-j letters as mutable context-sensitive abbreviations and the factorials for the permutations and combinations for a whole line would be large and impractical for letter-frequency analysis.
If, in contrast, you assign only one interpretation to each abbreviation (so that letter-frequency calculations are possible), then you not only violate the way abbreviations are normally applied in Latin scripts, but you get nothing but gibberish if you try to translate VMS into the Latin language (or any other language).
-JKP- > 19-09-2016, 10:29 AM
(19-09-2016, 10:23 AM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
3. Match abbreviations to each possibility with certain probability. If y is A in 50%, and BC in 50%, so y's frequency is spread among A, B and C accordingly.
farmerjohn > 24-10-2016, 07:37 AM