VMs: Yet another page

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is basically the same study, with [ha] and [hb] words clearly indicated
by color, along side the words that are "unique" (only occurring once) in
the herbal section.

http://voynich.info/vgbt/xcrptn/ha-hb.pdf

While some may not have an interest, others may, so I'll describe these
pages as "visual aids" to statistical research.  Pages like these help to
confirm a lot of numbers, and help a person to ask new questions.

The best visual aid IMHO is the text itself, or at least a close
representation of it.  Some experienced Voynichologists will have problems
with my "straight-tailed 9" as an example, but if you do, remember that I
may share the same doubt.  I only record what I see on the folio, and as I
said in the beginning, good analysis will help to sort these things out
later.  My primary purpose was to determine the unit of text or glyph
assignments by analysis, which required a transcription that properly
reflected minor differences.  So don't get bummed out if the percentages are
skewed slightly under 1% from Currier or slightly higher for CURVA. In the
end, it all has real intended purpose.....   trust me! :-) [I know at least
Nick will find interesting that a quick study of the "cc" as two glyphs, as
opposed to "cc" as a single glyph, as I've recorded both visually, confirms
that my record of the differences are also statistically significant in
terms of this particular study.]

For those new to the VMS, pages like these can reveal a wealth of
information at-a-glance.  When someone speaks of "a high number of unique
words" for example, BAM! - right in the kisser... all you have to do is see
how red the pages bleed to understand this. Currier's "language A" [ha] and
"language B" [hb] ( the [h] stands for herbal folio )are readily evident
here, adding a visual aspect to these extremely important statistics.
Commonality between the two [ha/hb] is displayed in black, so this factor is
also quite evident.

A note on [ha] and [hb] - this view does not take into account Currier's
statistics on word endings, as one of my earlier pages exemplified.  Rather,
this study looks only at apparent differences using Currier's general
classifications.  This view might be more in line with Currier's "Hand 1"
and "Hand 2", since no attempt was made to demark the words based on word
endings.  Nevertheless, it backs up his general theory that there are marked
differences in the folios, based on both visual and statistical
observations.

Obviously, this isn't everything, but only a portion.  The items listed in
this view have clear demarcations as they belong to obvious sets.  Each set
in turn, has its own internal stats, which I'm attempting to find a way to
reflect.  I'm a bit repetitive on the term "demarcation" simply because this
is what my focus is at the moment - understanding where all the variations
begin and end.  It may not be all that clear-cut, it may be a transitional
entity better overlaid and graphed than presented in my current theme.  (If
that's the case, Rene has already done it, and I'm wasting my time.)

Some examples of what I'm speaking about, in a general, so you may also look
for these patterns - not represented in this study but for later views =

- "unique" words most often vary by only a single glyph from other forms,
about half and half on internal and ending.  These variants tend to stay
with the [ha]/[hb] folio demarcation, but the cases that don't stand out.

- [hb] folios studied are only about 1/3 of [ha] folios in total word
number, yet a selection of the "commonality" words occur only once or twice
in [ha] and multiple times in [hb].

- mapping the above [hb] words onto [ha] text and then observing the
"uniques" in that line or paragraph demonstrate (to me, at this particular
moment), that some other element is controlling that line besides [ha]
"language".  The reverse is true for lines in [ha], though not so readily
apparent BEFORE the advent of [hb] pages, i.e., prior to f26r.

All this leads to some deeper statistics on "transition", in answer to the
question of whether or not [ha] and [hb] Herbal bifolios got intermingled
later on when the book was bound and collated.

We have one "certainty" here in regard to production.  At least in the
herbal section, [my only current study, myopic bastard that I am], the
folios were drawn and "texted" before the book (or quire) was bound.  The
relationship between one side of the vellum (1r/8v, 1v/8r, only as example),
generally exhibits itself within statistical boundaries as being the order
in which the folios were written, indicating that they were written while
the vellum was unbound and could be laid flat, and that one side of the
vellum (two folios, 1r/8v only as example) was completed before the other
side was utilized.  Given this fact, the quire marks could only have been
added after the binding of quires (commonly sewn together before the "book
binding" took place).  Quire marks are also an indication that this was the
case, since they mark the location of a quire in a "book", and generally
have no other purpose other than "assembly" in the production scheme.
Whoever bound the "quires" most probably also bound the "book".  The order
of the quires within the book tends to indicate that it was "quire-marked"
for binding by the author him/herself.  Foliation would probably not have
been done by the author, and was not common pre-1550, and was immaterial
until quire and order had been established, i.e., foliation is a funtion of
a bound book, not a set of loose leaves or quires, so it must have been last
in the order of the production schedule.

What all this means is - if a transitional curve were present, it would be
evident, not in current foliation or identification schemes, but in the
order in which leaves were physically filled out and placed withing quires.
So comparing 40r to 40v and looking for "transition" or "connection" from
one side of the vellum to the next is moot.  We have ample evidence of
construction technique, and are gaining more all the time.  Only a study
incorporating knowledge of "construction timeline" will yield the
"evolutionary evidence" necessary to answer more than one question, and this
is all about asking the right questions.

In that sense, my current presentation is grossly out of scale.  I'd like to
hear more from John Grove, Rene, Gabriel, Philip Neal, and any others who
have done studies and made observations or comments on the VMS compilation.
What I've been "hinting" at in my study is that we have a lot of very good
numbers, but we always put them in the order that logically suits a
20th/21st century mind.  We need to put these numbers in respective order,
and hence better perspective.  This may well be the "demarcation" I'm
seeking and cannot find words for.

GC

ps.  why is it the more "Friskies" I feed my cat-child, the less "Frisky" he
becomes?  I can't tell him from a 21 pound potato sack laying on my lap any
more - but don't be fooled by his outward complacency - it's really inward
lethargy, and he doesn't move from the time I sit down to the time I go to
bed.  That's a lot of potatoes.

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list