Archive for the ‘Nick Pelling’ Category

Odd Distributions of “oy” and “ay”

August 23, 2012 6 comments
A few weeks ago I posted some images showing the positions of the 
gallows characters on each of the VMs folios.
(The blog post is here is you missed it: )

With a couple of small changes to the code, I have generated a set of 
images showing the positions of the "oy" and "ay" glyphs on each of the 
folios. (I believe the oy and ay are transcribed in EVA as ol and or, 
not sure.) This was prompted by the observations that
a) these glyph pairs often occur many times on a folio,
b) on some folios they don't appear at all
c) on some other folios only "ay" appears, on others only "oy"
d) often the "oy" glyphs appear to the left of each line, and the "ay" 
to the right, and sometimes vice-versa.

I wanted to link to a few example images from the set. The colour code 
is "oy" yellow and "ay" pink, with the coloured square indicating the 
position of the "o" or "a", a grey square indicating another glyph, and 
a black square a space.

1)  Examples of "oy"s at the left, and "ay"s at the right:

2) Example of the opposite: "ay"s at the left, "oy"s at the right:

3) Example of only "oy" on the folio:

4) Example of only "ay" on the folio:

5) Example of numerous "oy"s to only one "ay":

6) Example of an even mixture of both types, across the lines:

What might be going on here? Nick Pelling commented on my blog that GC, 
while working on the Voyn_101 transcription, got the impression that the 
change from dominant "oy" to dominant "ay" was a vocabulary change in 
the text (at least, that's what I understood from Nick's comment).

I'd welcome comments on this. Also, if you would like me to generate 
images for your favourite glyph's distribution, it's a trivial process - 
just let me know
Categories: ay, Glen Caston, Nick Pelling, oy, oy Tags:

Folio Similarities

February 26, 2010 8 comments

Something Knox said recently made me wonder how the vocabulary of the VMs folios changes throughout the manuscript.

I made some counts and filled them into an Excel spreadsheet. I defined the Similarity between folio i and j to be computed as follows:

1) List all unique words in Folio i = Ni
2) List all unique words in Folio j = Nj
3) List all unique words appearing in both Folio i and Folio j = Mij

Then compute Similarity = Mij / (Ni + Nj – Mij)

(If Folio i contains exactly the same words as Folio j then S = 1, and if it contains no words in common with Folio j then S = 0)

You can see a visual pattern of of the Similarity distribution here:

(I have a feeling I’ve seen something similar to this for the Voynich before … but can’t find it now – can someone help? – see References below!)

This contour plot is symmetric about a line running diagonally from the left hand bottom corner to the top right hand corner, corresponding to i=j (for which I set the values to 0 for easier viewing).

The rectangular red region around folios 140 to 165 corresponds to strong similarity in the VMs folios f75r to f84v – the Biological Folios. These pages all typically share up to 50% of the same words.

What I found surprising is the generally low level of shared vocabulary between the folios: typically only a few of the words used on one folio are used on the next – but see below.

The spreadsheet answers questions like “Which folio is most similar to folio f1v?” … the answer being f24r by this metric.


Using the Similarity number as a connection strength between each pair of folios, we can generate a cluster map that arranges the folios so that similar folios appear together. I used the freely available software called LinLogLayout to do this. Here are the results:

The algorithm has split the folios into two clusters, shown as red and blue circles. Interestingly, the red circles generally match Currier Hand 1 and the blue match Currier Hand 2. For some folios near the interface, e.g. f68r1, the Currier Hand is “unknown” (according to … indicating uncertainty in the attribution, consistent with the folio’s position on the cluster map.

For folio f103v, at the far right edge of the blue cluster, the Currier Hand is “X”.

Comparison with a Latin Text

Here I took the Latin Herb Garden and split it into 20 folios corresponding to each of the herbs described. Then I ran the same code against it to generate the similarities between each folio, and made an Excel spreadsheet.. The corresponding contour plot is shown below, with the same colour scale as the one for the Voynich above.

As you can see, the typical value of “Similarity” between folios is around 0.02 or so … much *lower* than for the Voynich. The conclusion is that the Voynich folios are much more alike than this Latin text, and the Biological Folios in particular are quite unusually similar.


This is very similar work to that done by Rene in 1997: although his word counting rules are different (I only count unique words).

Comment by Nick Pelling

Nick sent me the following email and included an annotated version of the LinLogLayout shown above.

Having played with it a bit (as per the attached jpeg), it appears that while some pages’ recto and verso sides are very similar, others are wildly different. For example, just in the recipe section:-
103    good
104    very bad
105    very good
106    bad
107    excellent
108    excellent
109    (missing)
110    (missing)
111    excellent
112    good
113    excellent
114    excellent
115    very bad
116    n/a

Looking at pages within recipe bifolios, however, yields different results again: for example, even though both f104 and f115 are both “bad” above (and are on the same bifolio), f104v is extremely similar to f115r, while f104r is extremely similar to f115v (which is a bit odd). Furthermore, the closeness between f111v and f108r suggests that these originally formed the central bifolio (but reversed), i.e. that the correct page order across the centre was f111r, f111v, f108r, f108v. However, f105 / f114 seem quite unconnected, as do f106 / f113 and f107 / f112.

At this point, however, we may be mining too deeply, and that the presence of so many datapoints in a single overall set may be getting in the way. I suspect that pre-partitioning the dataset (i.e. working on each thematic section in isolation) may yield more informative results.