The Voynich Ninja

In my opinion, the events developed as follows.
After writing the manuscript, he spent a long time (20-40 + years) lying scattered. This is evidenced by fouling of the f67r2 and ROS sheets (this can not happen in a stitched form, since the cover dimensions are always larger than the sheets).
Perhaps these long sheets were used to store other Quire (the folder for paper).
The owner of the archive decided to make a book, for which he collected the sheets in a notebook and made the Quire numbering. This happened in the period 1442 - 1505g, when for different purposes three types of numbering were used (Roman numerals and two variants of Arabic numerals).
The owner gives the Quires (notebooks) to the bookbinder,  that makes a mistake when stitching Quire 9.
After receiving the finished book, the owner wants to number the pages, and, reaching the page 67 he automatically makes an inscription in the upper right corner. But noticing that on this page there was a Quire 9 signature, he crossed out the first option 67  to talk with the bookbinder maker to correct the error.
[attachment=1265]

 The process of Re-stitching is associated with damage to the cover, so the owner rejects this idea and writes again 67.
A hundred years later some numbers were damaged by the worm.   Post # 32-34 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The first inscription 67 could have been washed (there are traces of the reagent on the reverse side, as on f1v) later, when the "signature" of Tepenec on the first page was washed away.
 

(17-02-2017, 09:31 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is an example of the numbering of the manuscript 1466 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  (208v - 210r) and its compliance with MV .
To indicate the 2, 3, 4, 5 are used "tricky" ligatures.
Yellow squares is highlighted separation symbol on items. The shape is similar to a computer symbol of section.

[attachment=2540]

This is probably not something new, but does the II part of XII9 (duodecimus, 12th) symbol look like the one on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ?

I wonder if it is possible that the mark on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. indicates the end of Chapter II or Quire II or something related to 2…

The one on the left is the "us/um" abbreviation (the 9 symbol) but I'm fairly sure the one on the right from the VMS is a "g". It's a pretty normal way to write "g" and not a normal way to write the 9 abbreviation symbol. Also, it does not match the style of 9 in the quire numbers or in the VMS main text.

But isn't Zhe right that the "ij" part in Xij could be what is meant in f57v, in other words, this is just the Roman numeral for 2? The whole reason why the letter j came to exist was for creating contrast in "ii" clusters.

That would leave the macron to be explained, which might be instead of the two dots or indicating an ordinal number?

I don't think this is a macron. I know it looks like it, but some scribes wrote "g" like that and the letter "y" was almost non-existent at the time. It would be less common to see a y with a macron (or ij or ÿ with a macron).

I posted examples on another thread. I'll try to find them.

Okay, some examples. I didn't search hard for these, I know I have better ones (ones that are closer), but these were the ones I was able to grab quickly. The scribe writes a y-shape and then adds the line and the line is often disconnected from the lower part of the letter:

[attachment=2541]


Especially notice how the tail swings far to the left. When it was ij or ÿ this was not usual, it was usually more vertical. The g tail often swung far left.

Right, well, I won't argue with those examples, they are almost identical. But why write a "g" there?

JKP / They wanted to write “G” here, but forgot to write a macron?
[attachment=2542]

(04-12-2018, 12:57 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP / They wanted to write “G” here, but forgot to write a macron?

Great example, Wladimir. It does look more like an unfinished g or a y than a Voynich character. Also, looking at the spacing and the slightly darker ink (not much, just a tiny bit), it also looks like it MIGHT have been added afterwards. In this case, the long long tail and the slant reminds me of the handwriting of whoever wrote the quire numbers.


There are MANY MANY places in the VMS where it looks like characters have been added. This seems especially true at the beginnings of lines, sometimes at the ends of lines and also within lines, with some pages seeming that way more than others.

To my eyes the ink is just as dark as the pi-like character - but that's a weird one as well.

(04-12-2018, 10:20 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To my eyes the ink is just as dark as the pi-like character - but that's a weird one as well.

The pi-like character is an uncommon VMS character, but here it does almost look like it was added in.

I have FREQUENTLY wondered if the VMS text was laid down in more than one pass, with spaces on the first pass to add the characters in the second pass.

The whole manuscript is slightly weird in terms of spacing, and the ink dips are not regular, and multiple-pass text might explain both of these oddities.



Why would it be done this way? If it were constructed text or cipher text, it might be easier to put it together in more than one pass.

The same would be true of steganographic text. If you were creating a "drawing" with letters or a textual message that is scattered on the page, then you would do it in more than one pass, put down the message first, and then flow the rest of the text around it.