15 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2021
    1. they do not form the basis for discovery,

      I don't entirely agree with this part of the statement because the digital tools we have allow us to both view information in an entirely new way and to see connections that we couldn't have seen very readily. For example, the ability to take any written work and create a concordance of words can give us great insight that just reading the work would not have. If we wanted to see to what degree society is viewed from a male vs. female perspective between 1920 and 2020 we could analyze specific words in several pieces of literature from those time periods to see how significantly each gender is represented. If not impossible to do before digital tools, it would certainly be so laborious as to render it an insignificant goal in the scheme of humanistic inquiry. Thus we there is a basis for discovery within digital tools.

  2. Mar 2021
  3. Aug 2020
  4. Jun 2020
  5. May 2020
  6. Aug 2018
    1. This text analysis that it contains words written in hebrew and deciphering of the first sentence of the text using hebrew translation seems to align with what this author is saying about the text being passed down through the family.

      She made recommendations to the priest, man of the house and me and people.

      [Source] (https://hyp.is/GB7sZKjvEeidoGeGo8L6jA/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mysterious-manuscript-decoded-computer-scientists-ai-a8180951.html)

    1. Comments, questions, suggestions? Your feedback is welcome.

      Sukhwant Singh's analysis here seems to fit with a lot of other's partial analysis/observations such as multiple characters representing the same character, certain characters only appearing at the end of words etc. It seems quite compelling. The dates however, are a century too early although that does not necessarily dispel his theory that it is written in Landa Khojki.

    2. Many "words" differ by only one character and are found in each other's vicinity

      This might suggest the same thing as Tiltman's analysis in that a single character may take several forms.

    3. Tiltman treats f as a variant form of k and p as a variant form of t

      When learning that there were over 100 characters used in the manuscript my first thought was that perhaps variations of a character were used to represent the same character.

    4. Speaking generally, each character behaves as if it has its own place in an 'order of precedence' within words; some symbols such as o and y seem to be able to occupy two functionally different places.

      This is very interesting. It seems to suggest that each word may be scrambled based on the characters used.