The Voynich Ninja

I have translated now Page 3 of this manuscript (i.e. the first page with text on it). You can see 4 paragraphs on this page, and the summary or topic of the paragraph is on the bottom slightly to the right.

The first paragraph describes a battle and it is entitled: " re ne tex una " - which means " des Kampfes nicht wirke ein einziger " -> "in a battle you do not act alone"

The second paragraph is for adults only, which is one of the reasons why voynich is encoded; because it is x-rated I can just post it in latin (see below).

The third paragraph: a woman has broken the sixth commandment and is now facing judgement not without blaming her companion. Title: " [font=Cambria]a qua o nex i is[/font] " - " mit auf welche Weise ach der Tod du bist " -> "With how oh death you are"

Last paragraph: a game of chess. May be it is a famous maneuver? Title: " mea exis " - " das Meinige du schmeisst heraus " -> "you are throwing out my pawns"; in the latin text you have simply use "pawn" for "re", which stands for "thing".

here now the translations, beginning with paragraph 1, latin first than in german:

1 ve ea re der reo et re qu exis una o urat est id erra dura o m re
2 dat re os et at rere x te a qu exis uret ex des et es et nes
3 der exitu nil re at rere x is unam es a et re es ad ne texis der
4 M axis a qui ire a qui ad da o a qu re ese at ne x is a rexi se a res
5 dexter ea iet es ex is em et eo ex is

1 Der Streitkräfte dort des Krieges ich werde (als Befehlshaber) erteilt, glaube auch des Kampfes (mit) einer halben Kohorte du ziehst hinaus allein. Er verwüste, er verzehrt, dasjenige irre umher, daure an. Entgegen eintausend 2 er veranstaltet des Kampfes, die Frechheit: Auch jedoch gegen eine Kohorte du mit einer halben Kohorte du ziehst hinaus, er wird verwüsten dennoch seit du vernachlässigst sowohl du hälts auf als auch du schwimmest 3 ich werde überlassen dem Ausgang nichts, des Kampfes aber glaube eine Kohorte dasselbe allein du bist, mit auch des Kampfes du bist, heran nicht du wirkst, ich werde erteilt 4 eintausend Wagen, mit so viel kommen an, so dass er heran veranstalte. gegen eine halbe Kohorte des Kampfes vollbringend aber nicht eine Kohorte du gehst an ich habe beherrscht sich in der Kampf  5 Glück bringend dort es wird kommen (dass) du lebst, sogleich dasselbe nimm auch ich gehe sogleich dasselbe

Paragraph 2 (latin only because the text is for adults only):

1 ane turre ea a o emar ear em e tu nate o meus una me ter
2 auri re unam re alea are a que a a o ea aes re ad eare meus ea a trad
3 meum una deo a o unam re

Paragraph 3:

1 a meus emi deum a o demi a re qu ex s una ur re e maneo id
2 a runa lunare a qu ex is a qui a o ares una meum dos re nex is
3 una re os ire laneum em re em a nex i o des i re uni a o nex s m
4 meus axis ea a o a nex is ea o meus eam re a lex s mus es erra m
5 una ea a o ea ames luner rea amat ea nex is una ri i at a
6 re ea a que a a re ea i lex s uni a te una o m re m re m es re nex es ....
7 re qua una o ur ala muri re em meo re m et ex s meus os re m d
8 mea et ures eu mare ude a ire uni re em qua o esi o d mea i qua
9 una rea at ea ire meus os a re 

1 In mir ich habe genommen den Gott an. weggenommen werden von der Welt und fünf über sechs alleine verbrennen; glaube daran, ich erwarte dasjenige. 2 Durch einen Wurfspieß krümmen, bei fünf sogleich du bist bei welches mit. Du dürstest allein das Meinige, die Gabe glaube der Tod du bist 3 zusammen glaube das Antlitz komme weich wie Wolle, nimm entgegen, nimm an der Tod eins. Du gebest eins der Beziehung vereinige mit. Der sechste Tod eintausend 4 mein Himmel gehe auf. Im Tod du bist dort. Mein ich komme entgegen an das sechste Gebot, eine Ratte du bist, irre umher, eintausend 5 zusammen vergehe mit. Dort das Querholz ich werde gebogen, schuldig er liebt dort der Tod du bist, zusammen der Beziehung eins jedoch bei 6 der Prozess vergehe bei und mit durch der Tat gehe ein das sechste Gebot, vereinige mit dir allein. Eintausend denken, eintausend der Beziehung, eintausend du bist, glaube der Tod du existierst 7 der Tat auf welche Weise allein? Verwüste mit dem Gürtel der Ratte, entgegen nimm, ich gehe der Tat eintausend und heraus sechs mein Antlitz der Beziehung eintausend Tage 8 gehe, und du wirst brennen brav! Das Meer feucht an fließen, vereinige des Ereignis, nimm auf welche Weise? zerstörend! Ein Tag ich gehe eins wohin, 9 zusammen schuldig aber dort kommen meine Gegenwart mit entgegen

Paragraph 4:

1 em au rex is una re a i ie ea a o quur a ni deru ni re te re ni ire ea ret an et
2 ad meus ea a o meus ese o ne tu ni et rex is ne tu ni re es et
3 ea a a rex is una exis ala o meum vetes a o meus esa o meta
4 re ea i ire a rex is al re meum alea i erra rex is area a ora ea re ne
5 mea i a unam erra uni re es re alea i reri i reri ire ne o ea quat
6 ea at ea a o ea alea a quer ea a qui re 

1 Da! Bewahre! Der König du ziehst alleine des Bauers an eins, das heißt gehe vor. Warum vor? Wenn (du) nicht hinauswirf wo nicht des Bauers du entgegen nicht ziehen dort glauben doch wohl auch 2 heran mein dort an. mein verbrauchend. wahrhaftig du wenn nicht auch der König du ziehst damit nicht du wo nicht des Bauers du bist auch 3 dort bei mit der König du ziehst allein du gehst hinaus Flügel. das Meinige du hindrest bei. mein verbrauchend. das Ziel: 4 des Bauers dort eins ziehen an der König, du ziehst hervorbringe des Bauers das meinige Spiel: eins täusche der König du ziehst ein Feld mit. Erbitte dort des Bauers nicht 5 das Meinige eins mit alleine täusche vereinige des Baues, du bist zurück Feld, eins bedenke, eins bedenke: ziehen nicht. dort schlage 6 dasgleiche aber dort mit. dasjenige spiel an klagen gehe nach wovon des Bauers.

Best regards,
Michael

Can you specifically tell which folio number?

Hi Common Man,
he says it's "Page 3 of this manuscript (i.e. the first page with text on it). You can see 4 paragraphs on this page"
So I guess he is referring to f1r.
I note that he provides no explanation for the "big red weirdo" glyphs on this page. Does he just ignore them?
What about the last parts of the paragraphs that are separated from the rest on the lower right side of each paragraph? Does he just ignore the space and consider them as a continuation of the last line of the paragraph? Or are those words  ignored too?
It's really not clear from this presentation.
Also, according to him, the Voynich Manuscript opens with a discussion of war, sex, adultery judgements and... chess? "With oh how death you are"... Yeah, I'd say this translation experiment is obviously not going very well for him.

(18-07-2018, 01:11 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.he says it's "Page 3 of this manuscript (i.e. the first page with text on it). You can see 4 paragraphs on this page"
So I guess he is referring to f1r.

Yes.

f a ch y  s y  k a l ...
v e ea re d er r e o ...

Of course it's not Latin, not even close, which was pointed out repeatedly. A test like the one on Klaus Schmeh's blog would be useful, if he wanted to test a hypothesis rather than indulge in confirmation bias: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Did anybody understand in detail the frame shift part and how it was applied to the passages in question?

I was a biochemist and am familiar with the concept yet in the explanations above there was no clear example that I could see of that part of the process. That absence seems to be a major fault of the presentation which has been largely overlooked.

Rather, critics have focussed on the fragmentary non grammatical Latin results, which seems reasonable criticism.

But I think it's a shame that a potentially useful approach could be discredited by one faulty attempt.

The other interesting part was the concept of o as punctuation. Is that new because I do not recall seeing that in my reading so far.

The other thing I was wanting to say is, I think it unfortunate that "theory" is almost a dirty word on this site. I mean, I understand why, but still....in any scientific study of a complex system it is absolutely essential to have a model which can explain results and make testable predictions.

The frame shift approach could be one such model that bears further investigation.

P.S. How come I'm a Scriba now? Did I gain karma somewhere? Or is that a side effect of the site upgrade? I really think I'm a Disciplus in fact.

@Dr. Michael Hoffmann - please use folio reference numbers. This is a standard convention that if you were a scientist you would find as common nature to follow.

@DONJCH - nothing wrong with theory. It's when the theorist presents their hypothesis as a fully formed plan, and refuse to test the theory, that people get ignored.
I think people are concentrating on the results because any attempt to develop the method has been met with indifference by @Dr. Michael Hoffmann. @JKP has tried it several times.
PS - congratulations on your promotion - you've gone over the post limit 

David,you are kind, thank you!
Clearly, I've been talking too much and not reading enough!

(18-07-2018, 05:00 PM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did anybody understand in detail the frame shift part and how it was applied to the passages in question?

I was a biochemist and am familiar with the concept yet in the explanations above there was no clear example that I could see of that part of the process. That absence seems to be a major fault of the presentation which has been largely overlooked.
...


The frame shift approach could be one such model that bears further investigation.

...

I agree the concept itself is interesting (it's one of the reasons I bothered looking at the presentation in detail). Ideas like this are very familiar to cryptanalysts, but other than the way Hoffmann uses the glyph "o" as a marker to introduce and delimit a new phrase, I cannot see anything one might term a "frame" or any sign that the interpretation is being shifted (or in which a shift in the sense of a "mutation" that might affect the rest is trying to be avoided).

Putting the frame-shift idea to the side for the moment, in his most recent post, he refers to "re" (one of the highly repeating fragments) as meaning a "thing" and he's constantly referring to context (with questionable reasoning for expanding some of the tokens to create the context), so the impression I get he is interpreting some of the syllable fragments as multi-use syllables. In other words, here it means this, there it means something else, as a generalized token. Unfortunately, once again, that implies very broad subjective interpretation.

From the most recent post we see this (I have added the English translation which may not be perfect but hopefully is good enough):


2 dat re os et at rere x te a qu exis uret ex des et es et nes

2 er veranstaltet des Kampfes, die Frechheit: Auch jedoch gegen eine Kohorte du mit einer halben Kohorte du ziehst hinaus, er wird verwüsten dennoch seit du vernachlässigst sowohl du hälts auf als auch du schwimmest

2 He organizes the fight/battle, the impudence! Also, however, against a troop/cohort, if you have only half a troop, you retreat/pull out; he will ravage you, as you neglected either to stop or to swim.


3 der exitu nil re at rere x is unam es a et re es ad ne texis der

3 ich werde überlassen dem Ausgang nichts, des Kampfes aber glaube eine Kohorte dasselbe allein du bist, mit auch des Kampfes du bist, heran nicht du wirkst, ich werde erteilt

3 I will not leave the outcome of the fight/battle, but believe you are, by yourself, a troop, also part of the battle, herewith you do not act, [thus] granted to me.


.
From what I can tell, "der exitu nil re" has been interpreted as "I will not leave [the battle]".

Of course "exitu nil" is not Latin for "not leave", one would not use "nil" for not, it has the connotation of absence or nothingness. You might say something like "non exitum" (although this is not the best way in Latin).

In the bolded phrase, "at rere" appears to have been interpreted as the battle (des Kampfes). In Latin one would use "pugna" or "proelium" to refer to a skirmish or fight, or "bello" for a battle, none of which is similar to "rere".

(18-07-2018, 05:22 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@DONJCH - nothing wrong with theory. It's when the theorist presents their hypothesis as a fully formed plan, and refuse to test the theory, that people get ignored.

I couldn't agree more!

It happens too often (and the present discussion is a good example) that theories become a conviction.


They need to be tested. Where is the test that this proposed method is correct?
Where is the search for evidence?

In the many discussions I have had with several people in the same situation (i.e. being convinced of their theory)
the only 'evidence' that has ever been presented was that the resulting text was sufficient evidence that
the theory was correct. This is always highly subjective.

Many people don't even use the word 'theory'. They jump straight to 'solution'.

The worst case (also not rare) is when a theory is used to decide which evidence is reliable, and which is not.
The theory is used as the benchmark.
This is completely the opposite of what one should do:
the evidence is the benchmark for the theory.

Certainly, some evidence may be less reliable, but that should be decided on the basis of independent information. "Ad hominem" arguments may be completely valid in such cases.

I have a theory about who sold the MS to Rudolf. I've had it since 2012. Evidence supporting it exists, and even though it has increased significantly in the last year or so, it is still not sufficient to my liking. So, still searching and not writing about it just yet. (Sorry for off-topic)