the scales of maximal information for the DNA sequence of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and for the Fortran source code are sensibly different from those of the human language texts and the Voynich manuscript. These results suggest that the overall statistics of word distribution over the text in the Voynich manuscript is comparable with that of real human languages.
the network of relationships that we obtained showed that related words share similar morphological patterns, either in their prefixes or suffixes. This fact suggests that any underlying code or language in the Voynich manuscript has a strong connection between morphology and semantics
I haven't had time yet to look through the work in detail, but this seems like an interesting study overall. Most of all perhaps is that I wouldn't expect to see these properties in a text composed using a Cardan grille, assuming anyone was still taking that idea seriously.
I haven't read the link (and I avoided reading the news stories intentionally, on the basis that anything like this that makes the news is usually bollocks), but your two quotes are extremely unconvincing.
In the first case, surely "being different from DNA and Fortran" isn't the same as "being a meaningful language"?
In the second case, even granting that we know what Voynich words "mean" semantically, which we don't, that just means that the symbols are non-random (or, less likely, that the pictures may be non-random, designed to match random patterns emerging from the text). That doesn't make them meaningful. It's the sort of thing that you might well expect from pseudo-random glossolalia, with certain subject matters inspiring the glossolale (I know it's not a word but it should be damn it) to use certain sounds or morphological patterns, consciously or unconsciously.
At most, this can rule out certain kinds of non-language, not prove language.
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Though I can't speak to the details of the study, it is not implausible that such a study might be able to rule out all of the kinds of non-language that could be expected to matter. It would be nice to see some commentary about this from someone who knows more about the topic than we do and doesn't have an axe to grind. Perhaps we could ask Language Log to evaluate it?
Either way, if it contributes strong evidence against a major hypothesis, that is still something of value.
... and if you'd read my post before sarcastically replying to it, you'd see that I used the word "and". "I haven't read X and I haven't read Y" does not imply that I believe X and Y to be the same thing.
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
I have to agree with Goatface. You said "the news stories", not "news stories", which makes it seem like you thought his link was a news story, since there were no other "stories" being discussed.
clawgrip wrote:I have to agree with Goatface. You said "the news stories", not "news stories", which makes it seem like you thought his link was a news story, since there were no other "stories" being discussed.
That's one possible reading, but he may instead have meant "the news stories (on this topic that have been out recently)", which would make sense because there have been some.
Okay, let's just say his response was a little bit ambiguous, and then move on to the Voynich thing.
I have only skimmed the link, but I seem to remember reading elsewhere that the distribution made it very likely that it was not a natural human language.
clawgrip wrote:I have to agree with Goatface. You said "the news stories", not "news stories", which makes it seem like you thought his link was a news story, since there were no other "stories" being discussed.
That's one possible reading, but he may instead have meant "the news stories (on this topic that have been out recently)", which would make sense because there have been some.
And who says that languages without definiteness are ambiguous.
--
The article seems to be interesting, the distribution suggesting that there is something meaningful behind the symbols, as some words happen to appear more frequently in some sections and/or in neighboorhood of some toher words than elsewhere.
Creating such a sophisticated hoax would be pointless in the given age, even if possible.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
Salmoneus wrote:... and if you'd read my post before sarcastically replying to it, you'd see that I used the word "and". "I haven't read X and I haven't read Y" does not imply that I believe X and Y to be the same thing.
I did read your post. Apparently I misread it, and I apologize for being a dick about it.
All that aside, the analysis of the manuscript is very interesting - the appearance of morphology, the distribution of words being sensitive to the section, and having information-bearing sequences which are more language-like than not.
It seems to make the possibility of generated text unlikely. I haven't really seen anyone take the idea of a cypherlang seriously though, so I'm not sure if that's a tenable hypothesis.
Salmoneus wrote:... and if you'd read my post before sarcastically replying to it, you'd see that I used the word "and". "I haven't read X and I haven't read Y" does not imply that I believe X and Y to be the same thing.
I did read your post. Apparently I misread it, and I apologize for being a dick about it.
Thank you. In that case I apologise for being a dick about your post too.
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
