The Voynich Ninja

Emma, that is very interesting. 

I am fairly sure that the bench glyph is a ligature representing a number of consonant-vowel combinations. Your observations seem to support that idea. When certain consonants precede 'e', it is absorbed into the bench ligature.

Emma,

indeed, e (e) is generally rare in A pages, but it 'starts to appear' (if one may say that) in the pharmaceutical pages which are still considered A language. Here is is often seen in the combination eo (eo) for example cheol.

Quote:So, as explained elsewhere, if the most common word in A is "daiin" and in B is "aiin", and we say they are the same plaintext word (seems reasonable), then the glyph "d" in Language A must be a null ... but this may be flawed reasoning :-)

Let's consider why there are two "languages", to begin with. First of all, we have two (at least two) hands. That means that two (or more) persons were involved or maybe that was one person but in different circumstances which influenced his writing. For example, he wrote one part in his young age, the other one in his old age; or he wrote one part in comfortable conditions, the other one in uncomfortable conditions.

Next, the hands match to the languages. Hence, either the two persons used different languages for whatever reason, or the same person used different languages, for whatever reason.

Now, what's the reason?

The writing system is the same. That's important. What might differ might be the underlay plain text language (e.g. Dialect 1 vs Dialect 2) - in the case we have an unknown natural language here, or the encryption procedure - in the case we have a cipher here.

Let's consider the natural language case first. In that case we have two persons writing different languages or dialects in the same writing system. (Or one person writing those in different periods of his life). Now, even one rare language with an unknown writing system is something extraordinary, but two persons writing a single volume using different languages or dialects and using the same writing system for that is something that I would call not very probable. Likewise he would be a strange single author who started in one dialect and ended with another - both in the same writing system. The problem is not with a single writing system for two different languages - e.g. English and Latin both use the same alphabet - but with the single writing system unknown to us for two different (rare or extinct) languages.

Let's consider the cipher case next. Either two persons working together (or sequentially - like one is the follower of the other) or one person working sequentially would be unlikely to use two different ciphers (which, furthermore, use the same writing system) in a single volume. So the cipher algorithm is, most likely, the same.

What differs, then?

In the case of two persons working in parallel (or sequentially) the initial conditions of the cipher procedure might differ.
In the case of one person - and also in the case of two persons as well - one ciphertext might be a simplified or truncated version of the other. Like redundant characters being consistently omitted.

Is there any evidence of Currier B folios having been put down earlier than Currier A ones, or vice versa?

And, by the way, are there any consistent differences in parchment for Currier A and B?

(15-09-2016, 08:46 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:So, as explained elsewhere, if the most common word in A is "daiin" and in B is "aiin", and we say they are the same plaintext word (seems reasonable), then the glyph "d" in Language A must be a null ... but this may be flawed reasoning :-)

...

Let's consider the cipher case next. Either two persons working together (or sequentially - like one is the follower of the other) or one person working sequentially would be unlikely to use two different ciphers (which, furthermore, use the same writing system) in a single volume. So the cipher algorithm is, most likely, the same.

...

Or, the cipher relies on some mechanism (e.g. a cipher disk) that was reset between the writing of A folios and B folios. So, the plaintext to VMS conversion is slightly "off" because the disk is slightly off. This might also happen with a grille ... if the grille was damaged or aligned badly by the time the B folios were written.

Quote:Or, the cipher relies on some mechanism (e.g. a cipher disk) that was reset between the writing of A folios and B folios.

That's, in particular, what I mean when I speak of the different initial conditions.

(15-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Or, the cipher relies on some mechanism (e.g. a cipher disk) that was reset between the writing of A folios and B folios.

That's, in particular, what I mean when I speak of the different initial conditions.

I'm not saying this isn't possible, but usually when cipher disks are reset, the result is significantly different rather than different in a few small details.

(15-09-2016, 08:46 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now, what's the reason?

The writing system is the same. That's important. What might differ might be the underlay plain text language (e.g. Dialect 1 vs Dialect 2) - in the case we have an unknown natural language here, or the encryption procedure - in the case we have a cipher here.

Let's consider the natural language case first. In that case we have two persons writing different languages or dialects in the same writing system. (Or one person writing those in different periods of his life). Now, even one rare language with an unknown writing system is something extraordinary, but two persons writing a single volume using different languages or dialects and using the same writing system for that is something that I would call not very probable. Likewise he would be a strange single author who started in one dialect and ended with another - both in the same writing system. The problem is not with a single writing system for two different languages - e.g. English and Latin both use the same alphabet - but with the single writing system unknown to us for two different (rare or extinct) languages.

Both the script and the language could be the same, but the orthography may be different, which is indeed very likely if the script or the language were not commonly written. Here are lines from a Middle English poem, in two different manuscripts:

Þeos vle abod for hit wes eve, // Heo ne myhte no leng bileue,
Þos hule abod fort hit was eve, // ho ne miȝte no leng bileue,

You can tell they're the same text and basically the same language. But 6 of the 13 words have different spellings.

Backing up this idea is that the orthography of the Voynich text clearly shows evolution throughout the manuscript. I believe that this may be the underlying cause of A and B: the writer made changes to their orthography throughout the writing process, and the changes built up significantly so that the text looks quite different between beginning and end.

Quote:Both the script and the language could be the same, but the orthography may be different, which is indeed very likely if the script or the language were not commonly written. Here are lines from a Middle English poem, in two different manuscripts:

But here we do have a single manuscript, not two different ones. Why would the orthography evolve? And, further, is it evolution or a stepwise change?

If the script is the result of any kind of transcription, and this transcription was performed by more than one person, I would expect exactly these kinds of consistent inconsistencies. Maybe various scribes just had their own solution for certain scenarios.

(15-09-2016, 10:58 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Both the script and the language could be the same, but the orthography may be different, which is indeed very likely if the script or the language were not commonly written. Here are lines from a Middle English poem, in two different manuscripts:

But here we do have a single manuscript, not two different ones. Why would the orthography evolve? And, further, is it evolution or a stepwise change?

I don't know why the orthography would evolve. I'm seeking a model/process that fits the observation that the text changes over the course of the manuscript. Though the simplest reason for it would be that the script or language are new to being written, and the writer address problems as he finds them.

As to the nature of the changes, I'm not sure what the difference between evolution and stepwise would be here. Any orthography would be a set of discrete rules within the writer's head. Each one is either true or false at any given point in the manuscript. Multiple rules may have been changed at once, and some rules may have had a bigger effect than others.