Re: VMs: Image Source, Accuracy of Transcriptions

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

GC wrote:
> 
> Look at the forerunners to the EVA, and you'll see that most of them
> attempted to transcribe what they saw, and only after that attempt to make
> sense of it.  

	Here I don't agree.  EVA, FSG, and Currier map very
well onto each 
other.  EVA does sometimes use several characters where
FSG and Currier 
use one, but one can easily and unambiguously convert
back and forth 
with Gabriel's BITRANS scripts.  I agree, statistical
results look quite 
different between these three, plus Rene's CurEVA. I
found out as 
much way back in 1997 when I did the work for my paper,
"Understanding 
the Second-Order Entropies of Voynich Text".   CurEVA
or the older two probably represent one VMs grapheme 
with one character better. But Gabriel and Rene were
well aware of this 
when they designed EVA.  So I don't think that's the
issue.  If you see 
distinctions, say, that Currier doesn't make, that's
another story.

Dennis
--------------------------------
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]

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