Re: RE: about

[voynich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

It sounds like a vocable is what I would call a "unique word", 

1) A vocable is already an "unique word".

which
implies that (as I thought) the analysis in the essay is ignoring the
relative frequencies of "vocables".  Is that a good thing to do?

2)What something else do you propose?

  I
daresay some of them will only occur once or twice in the whole document;
some of those may not even be genuinely different from others, just appear
different due to transcription errors or invalid assumptions on our part.

3) Could you give us these errors and explain why those?

For instance: the letter "i", written in my rather messy cursive
handwriting, sometimes looks more like a loop and sometimes more like a
line.

4) MS is not a "cursive" handwriting.

A reader who didn't know the alphabet might easily call those
separate letters, which (it seems to me) would cause a big difference in
the results of this kind of analysis.

5) A blank separate letters and a large blank separate words. What kind of transcription do you propose?

What happens if you take a sample of text in a natural language and apply
your analysis technique to it?  Does it produce obviously different
results?

6) If i wrote this article it is because i have not detect this caracteristic in natural language!

What about a sample of text in an artificial language?  Does it
show the same characteristics that are being called evidence of
artificiality in the case of the VMS?

7)I said that my first step is to extract structurs to the MS and after I will research analogy. I have not the desire to spend my time to compare all artificial language with MS. I have only one life!

Sincerely,
AC