RE: VMs: [ha] [hb] not different languages

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> To my eyes, the entire VMS is expressed in a single systematic way - the
> same pair-like structures (qo, ol, al, or, ar, dy, of, ot, ee, air, ain,
> etc) I've been pointing to are evident on every single page of VMS text,
> and any statistical differences we're talking about appear as deviations
> from (or embellishments to) this homogeneous basic structure.

I would have to disagree with you here, especially on just about everything
you said in the upper paragraph :-)

1.  The entire VMS is *not* expressed in a single systematic way - as Rene
has demonstrated quite conclusively, there are rather clear and
well-established demarcations between the statistics of any given section
that make them separate from the others in the VMS.  Rene gives a minimum of
six distinct classifications, expanded into a longer initial list. You'll
find this a worthy read, at http://www.voynich.nu/extra/lang.html

2.  The same pair-like structures *do not* occur on every every single
page - there are common pairs that do, but for the most part there are very
clear statistical differences between the sections.  You appear to be
focusing on a small handful of structures, but in pairs that make up word
endings, there are 294 different pairs that serve as word endings.  When the
larger portion is viewed, the numerous 'deviations' cannot be dismissed as
mere 'embellishments', but must be accounted for in any viable hypothesis or
theory.

> So, when I say that the VMS is written in a single "language", what I'm
> trying to say is that the VMS is written using a single system of
> expression (perhaps putting the few key-like sequences aside). In that
> context, what are we to make of differences between pages (or
> perhaps more
> accurately between bifolios)? I suggested "dialects", as (in the real
> world) they tend to be part of a larger social structure and have
> soft-edged / fluid boundaries between them.
>
> But perhaps this is suggestive of the certainty I have that the pairified
> groups I've been describing form the fundamental building blocks of the
> VMS' language / system.

Taken in the sense that the few 'pairified groups' form 'fundamental
building blocks', I've an open mind on that concept, as long as it
progresses to the point of ordering and structuring the rest of the 'blocks'
as it goes along.

> >Of the 25% of words exlusive to [ha] or [hb], all you need do is write a
> >computer program to systematically change endings based on the
> beginning of
> >the word, and you can produce [hb] pages from [ha], or otherwise.  That's
> >not a "dialect" in any sense I understand the term.
>
> Curiously, that's almostly exactly the sense in which I used the term -
> that of two or more systems which have their own localised
> spelling/pronunciation, but which are recognisably and
> demonstrably part of
> a larger social whole, and which can be conceptually mapped between each
> other with reasonable success. What does "dialect" mean to you, GC?

Lets see----

Main Entry:dialect
Pronunciation:*d*-*-*lekt
Function:noun
Usage:often attributive
Etymology:Middle French dialecte, from Latin dialectus, from Greek dialektos
conversation, dialect, from dialegesthai to converse more at  DIALOGUE
Date:1577

a : a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary,
grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting
together with them a single language *the Doric dialect of ancient Greek*
b : one of two or more cognate languages *French and Italian are Romance
dialects*
c : a variety of a language used by the members of a group *such dialects as
politics and advertising Philip Howard*
d : a variety of language whose identity is fixed by a factor other than
geography (as social class) *spoke a rough peasant dialect*
e : REGISTER 4c
f : a version of a computer programming language
2 : manner or means of expressing oneself : PHRASEOLOGY
  -dialectal \*d*-*-*lek-t*l\  adjective
  -dialectally \-t*l-*\  adverb

I can accept that when one is attempting to formulate a general theory,
general terms are commonly used.  However, when the theory becomes more
specific, the terms have to become specific in nature.  The best way around
having to go back and rewrite half your paper is to begin by choosing terms
that are specific enough to your general theory to allow the free flow of
in-depth analysis without apparent contradiction in thought process.

You and I have been speaking of cryptographic systems in our posts.  There
are a few universally bantered general words in this field, but "language"
almost always refers to the underlying cleartext language.  Statistical
differences in a system are not referred to as "languages" in any sense, nor
are they called "dialects".  "Dialect" usually refers to the specific (and
often unusual) use of decrypted cleartext words in the underlying cleartext,
not statistical differences in cipher groups.  But that's just my thinking -
that specific terms allow the reader to follow your line of thinking in
terms specific to your approach, without much ambiguity.

> For me, "dialect" in the context of the VMS is neither a cryptological
> (code) nor a linguistic (language) construct, but rather a *behavioural*
> (statistical) one - it's what we observe the VMS "doing", how we
> observe it
> varying locally. Where that leads to is another matter... hopefully the
> answer. :-)

I detect a smattering of psychology-101 creeping in as well! :-)  Might I
suggest that the VMS follows the general *behaviour* observed in other
books, so we might conclude after long (hopefully goverment funded) study
that it is a *book*?  You lay it down, it lays there, you stand it up, it
stays there.  And like all books, the text and images mean different things
to different people?  :-)

GC

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