RE: VMs: Operators

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce Grant wrote:

> This makes me wonder if the underlying text might be being presented at a
> slow rate (say, one letter per "word"), with the writer fleshing it out
> with arbitrary text. (Something along the lines of "Shirley Shirley
> bo-Burley banan-bana fo Furley" etc. without the rigid pattern of nulls).

My problem with "null" theories in general is the amount of text per page.
I have no reason or alternate evidence to assume that an herbal page is not
about a plant at this stage. If it's about a plant, then compared to late
15th/early 16th century herbals, there's about the right amount of words and
text on each page, for each plant drawing.  In the pharma/antidotary
section, there's just about enough info-per-recipe when compared with early
and middle 16th century antidotaries (I haven't viewed any from the 15th
century as yet.)

If the text is about plants/herbs and antidotes/remedies, cutting down on
the apparent amount of information present would (to me) be limiting the
possibility that the text is in line with the drawings, something for which
there is no evidence at present.

I have a typical English herbal posted at
http://www.voynich.info/vgbt/Strong_files/herball_1553.html.  Don't be
fooled by the "Anthony Askham" name on this herbal.  This is a translation
of Macer's Herbal, and was first published by Richarde Banckes in 1525.
This particular herbal underwent multiple printings (by at least three
printers simultaneously) with many names as "author", between 1525 and 1558.
Askham was only one "author" on a long list.  This was the most published
herbal during this time frame, and even came in "textbook sets", along with
books on urine, stones, surgery, etc., and (as in the case of Askham), also
used as a reference book to go along with almanacs for medicinal purposes.

Other than its interesting historical background, what it's good for is
judging the number of words per plant, the average word length for
"standardized" English herbal text during this time frame, etc. - general
comparative statistics.  It also gives a view of "herbal structure" in terms
of the textual elements expected to be found in any given herbal
description.  You'll notice that you can't reduce the VMS information in the
herbal section by much and still maintain something close to the average
plant information, and you can't shorten the words at all and still maintain
the information necessary to convey this type of information.  (Yes,
shorthand might serve, but that's another argument, apart from the "null"
consideration.)

FWIW

GC



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Bruce Grant
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:56 PM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: Operators
>
>
> > --- Larry Roux <LRoux@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> [In reply to:]
> > 4) the words appear strange.  some "sentences" are
> > something like "abcd abed abcde abce"
>
> > This is indeed one of the main peculiarities of
> > the Voynich MS.
>
> This makes me wonder if the underlying text might be being presented at a
> slow rate (say, one letter per "word"), with the writer fleshing it out
> with arbitrary text. (Something along the lines of "Shirley Shirley
> bo-Burley banan-bana fo Furley" etc. without the rigid pattern of nulls).
>
> The repetitiveness could be the result of the writer's inability to invent
> different nonsense syllables as fast as he is writing, like the problem
> someone has trying to pretend to speak in tongues or to mimic the sound of
> a language he doesn't really know. (I think it's called "buffer
> underrun").
>
> Bruce Grant
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

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