There is a simple and consistent way to expose the fundamental structures of the Voynich text, including - or even especially - the phenomenon of Text A and Text B.
We do this by establishing a simple measure of the penetration of the two template words, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, in any given portion of the Voynich text.
We use these measures:
*Mark the glyph [q]
*Mark any gallows glyphs
*Mark the glyph [e]
*Mark the glyph [y]
This reduces the QOKEEDY paradigm down to the four unique elements: Q K E Y.
Next we mark the bigrams:
[qo], [ed] and [dy].
This step identifies those places where the [o] and the [d] are supplied by QOKEEDY rather than CHOLDAIIN.
We can take a simple count of these glyphs and then we can take them as a proportion of the glyphs in any given portion of text.
The question is: How much QOKEEDY is there?
At the same time, it is asking: How much CHOLDAIIN is there? because whatever is not from the QOKEEDY template is from CHOLDAIIN.
For convenience, I will refer to this property as Q. How much property Q is in a portion of text?
In these simple steps we can establish the extent to which QOKEEDY has intruded into, or forms, the text.
We can apply the method to words, lines, paragraphs, pages or larger samples of the text.
We can apply it to the entire text and generate what we can call a Q-Text - the whole text with the signatures of the QOKEEDY template marked.
(It's nice to introduce the symbol Q as a category here. It makes me homesick for New Testament Studies... but it's not that sort of Q-Text.)
It is a straightforward binary stratification of the text according to the two defauilt words: QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
We mark QOKEEDY because it is the more stable of the two paradigms. Only the gallows glyph has variants whereas CHOLDAIIN readily mutates: [ch] becomes [sh], for example. It is easier to track the elements of QOKEEDY.
It seems as though QOKEEDY is imposed upon CHOLDAIIN and not the other way around.
If we assume that the two paradigms are equal partners in the text, the natural boundary is 50%.
* * *
As an additional measure we will also note especially the glyph [q].
This is the defining feature of the Q paradigm. The initial [q] is an unmistakeable signature of the QOKEEDY template.
In a word we ask: Is there an initial [q]?
In a longer sample of text such as a line we ask: How many words begin with [q]?
For convenience, I will refer to this property - [q] initial - as q. How much property q - q-ness - is in a portion of text?
It is a shorthand guide because it largely matches the property Q, but we can have strongly Q text without many initial [q] glyphs and so we will treat it as a separate sub-measure.
As a convention I will mark the Q-Text blue, and the initial [q] red.
Calculations are simple percentages.
Q = the percentage of QOKEEDY glyphs.
q = the percentage of words with initial [q].
Note: Q is a measure of glyphs. q is a measure of words.
Note also: for counting purposes the benched gallows are counted as two glyphs, [ckh = [k] + [ch] and [iin] and [iir] are counted as one glyph.
* * *
As I say, we can apply this procedure to any portion of text whatsoever and calculate a measure of Q (and q).
qokaiin
[qokaiin] is five glyphs, with three of them from QOKEEDY. The proportion of Q = 60%. (The additional measure q = 100%.)
Words:
qokaiin = 60%
cheey = 75%
okchedy = 66%
qykchey = 83%
shorody = 33%
Labels:
oparairdly = 22%
okchoy = 40%
otardaly = 25%
fary = 50%
sheosam = 16%
rfchykchey = 62%
Lines:
doiin.otey.okeeol.saiin.okeol.qokeol.ctheol.qokeol.dy.qokaiin-
48 glyphs of which 22 are Q-Text. Q = 45%
Ten words of which three are [q] initial. q = 33%
qokain.chckhy.qokeey.qotedy.qotedy.qotary-
27 out of 33 glyphs are from QOKEEDY.
6 words of which 5 begin with q.
Q = 81%
[q ] = 83%
Paragraphs and groups of lines:
pcheo.dair.okchedy.olkeeedy.or.arody.qopchdy.shol.fchdy.cheoky.lchedy.qokam ysheor.aiin.char.okaiin.qokeechy.checkhy.qokeod.ar.qokeo.lkeo.leeo.ram shor.sheor.orkchsd.otairor.qokeeo.raiin.qokeeo.lchedy.olchedy.qokeol.qoky olcheoiin.ychedy.qokam.sheol.qokor.cheees
There are 222 glyphs. 96 are marked. Q = 43% There are eleven cases of [q]. There are 83 words. q = 28%
Q = 43% of glyphs
q = 28% of words
* * *
It is when we do this to large samples of text that we come up with the idea of "two languages", Text A and Text B. In fact, they are different concentrations of the two paradigms.
In Text A we find far less intrusion of elements from the QOKEEDY paradigm. CHOLDAIIN dominates. In Text B it is the opposite.
We also find different concentrations in different sections and pages - so-called 'dialects' of the so-called 'languages'.
The easiest way to map them and make them visible is to mark the Q-Text, impose the paradigmatic form QOKEEDY upon the text.
This is, I submit, a revealing and useful methodology.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment