The Voynich Ninja

Hi all,

For the past couple of months, I've been commenting on similar letter strings in Voynichese (ex. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and how the VMS scribe almost seemed to be choosing between different options for vord components (ex. ykchor - okchor - otchar - otchy).

Well, last night I made this 12x6 table to group vord components into different categories. The table is not perfect and I will need to modify it, but it can explain the compositions of most vords.



Using this method on a page picked at random (f32r), I can account for 58 out of 69 vords, with 5 vords not fitting. (The remaining 6 are benched gallows, whose breakdown is disputed.)

I can even account for vords that only appear once, such as dcheodain or dytchor




Just something to think about. I am not sure where to take my idea from here, but maybe it will help somebody with their hypothesis.

I love this stuff, Thomas, especially the way you visualized it. 

This makes me wonder about two things.

1. The words that don't fit, what causes them to not fit? What is different about them? Can they be divided in groups?
   
2. What would it look like if something like this were made for a language like Spanish or Chinese or..?  How big is the difference with something we could observe in normal language?
   

Can you explain why this tool would be useful? Or what fundamentals of word structure it reveals?

It does reveal a system of some sort.  Wow Mr. Coon if that many vords can be made from left to right maybe I can adjust the voynich numerology table to work but it would have to be nine columns.

If I'm not mistaken, Don 's system of groups aims to develop the discourse in the same way.

(30-10-2016, 11:12 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I'm not mistaken, Don 's system of groups aims to develop the discourse in the same way.

I was going to mention this also. Anton is correct, Don has worked out a system for groups of glyphs that have certain characteristics and tend to follow each other in sequence.

I have, as well, actually, and have hinted at it in a couple of blogs, but I haven't published my system (I am still, months later, trying to work out some of the combination glyphs). In general outline, it agrees with both Tom and Don's approach—it only differs in some of the details. That's why I always describe the VMS as being "structured" in a way that is different from natural language (with the perpetual caveat that it works this way if the spaces are actually spaces).

Facts would be nice, which Don are you talking about, which page, which system. 

Where did you mention it JKP, or where is the outline page which describe the structure ?

(31-10-2016, 12:16 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Facts would be nice, which Don are you talking about, which page, which system.

The most well known Don here is that of Tallahassee, here's the original thread: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

But I just noticed that Don preferred to delete his original post, as well as many other posts of his in other threads which I can't welcome as I consider that as disrespect to those who were engaged in discussion in those threads.

(31-10-2016, 12:16 AM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Facts would be nice, which Don are you talking about, which page, which system. 

Where did you mention it JKP, or where is the outline page which describe the structure ?

Yes, it's Don of T. And several months ago, he posted much the same basic idea as Tom, that you can divide the glyphs into groups and then, by taking parts of each group and combining them in sequence, you can come up with most of the vords in the VMS. I supported him in the beginning when he posted that because, in my opinion, he was on the right track (my own research agreed with what he was posting). After that, he started trying to apply English words to the text and I have been reserving judgment on that second part because I'm not completely convinced in the interpretation, but I support his initial statements about the way the glyphs are grouped and combined.

Tom's observation in this post isn't the first time he was on the right track. I don't know if he realized it at the time, but a couple of months ago, maybe three months ago, he posted something that showed he was headed in this direction, had the right idea and I supported his comments then. I don't have time at the moment to hunt up the post but I'm sure some members will remember it (at least I hope they remember it because it was a substantive observation).


The reason I haven't posted my version of this, except for hints, is because I like to have things farther along before I publish them and I have had a monumental struggle in determining which glyphs are diglyphs (there are a couple that are resisting analysis, which may be both diglyph and monoglyph, and which may possibly be serving two purposes). I felt it was important to work this out before posting and I've been working on it not just for months but for years. As I mentioned in several previous posts, I can predict the subject matter and position in the manuscript of some of these vords, I'm pretty pleased with that, but I am unhappy that I can't deconstruct all the components perfectly (it's driving me nuts, actually) and I set myself a goal of not posting it until I do. If I miss the boat because of that, well, what can I say. That's life. In some things I'm a stubborn perfectionist and I simply don't what to reveal it until I can explain at least three paragraphs and I'm going to try to stick to that.

JKP; the bench represents two or three sounds - but you probably know that :-)

I must admit that I haven't even looked into Don's system because several aspects of his English theory - which he is way too convinced of - just look impossible. It's a shame because he does seem to have some insight into the structure of the text.