[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (qo- words) vs (y- words)...?
> From: Nick Pelling
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:10 PM
> To: voynich@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: (qo- words) vs (y- words)...?
> Dear Nick,
> I have been studying what should be called "Voynichese morphology" for
> about three years and know a good deal about it by now. There are three
> different groups of words in the Voynich but I do not have the numbers-
> would you like to work on them? I find that my writing style reflects
> what I do: I sound just like a Junior High School teacher, consequently
> for the serious scholarly work I need a collaborator or a ghost writer. I
> don't mind collaborating, I usually enjoy it.
> For my money we need a numbers or statistical man, someone old and
> balanced to keep the conclusions close to the data, and someone young and
> enthusiastic and positive. The jobs can be shared and can overlap.
> If you are interested, write and I will define or describe the groups of
> Jim Comegys
> Hi everyone,
> >Could it be that <EVA qo + gallows + ...> == <EVA y + gallows + ...>? Has
> >anyone compared the stats of these two types of VMS words?
> I should perhaps put this within a larger context: the underlying
> proposition is that the VMS aren't a single unified cipher or code, but
> in fact a multiplicity of them (perhaps an overlapping ecology, or even a
> "society", recalling Minsky).
> Then, each subgroup - for example, "ot-" words - would have its own
> encoding style (and hence its own statistics). In which case, there would
> be no central paradigm: any blip would be little more than subgroups'
> statistical signatures poking weakly through the overall noise.
> This would fit the observation that, by 1401, it was already known that
> simple ciphers were vulnerable to attack: and this knowledge was to
> disseminate throughout Europe during the following years. So: a lot of
> effort was expended (by a lot of people) during the general time-frame of
> the VMS to find ways to make ciphers harder to break. Including a number
> different (yet similar-looking) ciphers (as described) would be one way to
> achieve this.
> For example, I've said that "ot-" words remind me of indices, or
> abbreviations, or referencing operations (though these may all ultimately
> be the same thing) into a codebook. The AAH (and especially the
> "conjunction" symbol-pairs) make this much more likely, ie because otolal
> ot- plus two symbols, (not ot- plus four symbols) under that reading.
> And similarly, "qot-" words quite probably indicate a subgroup, as do
> words (etc).
> But also, "d-" words (with the notable exception of "dain", which is
> perhaps some kind of meta-code?) appear to have their own quite distinct
> statistics - some days I think these look most like plaintext of anything
> there. :-/
> So: within this kind of structure, we'd need to:-
> (1) determine the basic alphabet
> (2) determine the subgroup structure - what subgroups exist? how do they
> (3) attack all the subgroups in parallel - assign virtual assault leaders
> to each one
> Has anyone already tried to build up a taxonomy of likely subgroups
> in the VMS?
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
> PS: until you're sure of the underlying alphabet, who's to say that things
> like OKOKOKO aren't anything more than merely transliteration artefacts?
> PPS: in all the above, there is an implicit assumption that the underlying
> alphabet is common to all the subgroups, though (cryptographically) that's
> not 100% certain... each subgroup *could* have its own transliteration
> style... but Occam's Razor (never a safety razor with the Voynich) would
> ~seem~ to make this extremely unlikely. :-/ Besides, this would be the
> only way we'd ever get close to it if it did. :-)