The Voynich Ninja

Extinct language ! ? :
If you think about it, the VM author would have been the last of his kind who converted the language into writing. That would also mean that the language still existed until about 1430.
Nevertheless the VM author managed to write some words in German. The drawing stem suggests European origin.
We are talking about a language and not about dialects. The theory of the lost language already gets crutches.
Was it really the only book in this language, out of millions of books ?
Even if at the moment a minimum of books is electronically recorded, and many libraries (of whatever kind) are preparing for it right now. This is due to the lack of reading devices and not to the lack of books. Even if it is not electronically recorded, such writing and language would already have been noticed.
The last author and the only book of its kind. Now the theory already needs a wheelchair.
For me, the possibility of an extinct language is not an option, but this does not exclude a language of fantasy.
Although I do not believe in fantasy language either.

Let's Yokubinize some English:

as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods

* Remove function words (this is already interesting):
flies wanton boys are gods

* Remove inflections:
fly wanton boy be god

* Join short words together
fly wanton boybegod

* Alter/delete 20% of the characters (I am being conservative):
fry wankon bybegod


Is the consistent and replicable recovery of the original possible?

We are going to take apart You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , to show CLEARLY what I am doing with the Voynich. I will use English only, and go from left to right, so everyone can follow along. And I will try to this in the simplest way possible.

King James Bible reads:  “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

Hebrew: “vyamr alhym el-mshh ahyh ashr ahyh oyamr kh thamr lbny yshral ahyh shhlchny alybm. (I utilized the sounds for the Cheth – ch, Shin – sh, and Thav – th for clarity sake)

Reading to English from the ROOT BASE definitions of Hebrew words without the addition of ‘and, but, or, to etc…’ which comes out garbled in VSO order:  
“Said God El Moses exist (a state of being) guide/blessed exist said this said son Israel exist throw/cast according to.” Last word alybm which means ‘according to’ was not translated in the bible and neither was El.

So for clarity’s sake again, I am not translating a proper syntax. I am however pulling out Root base words, to gain an understanding of what is being conveyed in the Voynich. The structure of the Voynich language is similar to biblical Aramaic Hebrew in the Bible, yet different with multiple agglutinative word usage. I theorize it is the lost language of the Khazars, whose language and writing went extinct in the 13th Century.  
Does that mean my theory cannot change with new information? Absolutely not.
Do I have definitions wrong? Absolutely, as you can see above. I try to use the most popular definition of a word, unless the sentence is showing something that brings out more clarity.
Will someone else ‘chose’ a different definition of a root word? Probably since one word can have multiple meanings.

(03-01-2020, 11:26 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

-JKP- Wrote:3. "My main concern about it is that there is still the problem of explaining the unorthodox letter frequency and position"

The fact that you are perfectly happy with the total absence of a grammar is puzzling. Is it unfair to think that grammar should play a role in a consistent translation? Lisa Fagin Davis observed that Gibb's work must be rejected because it is not grammatically correct. Monica's work is no better.

Anyway, the problem you mention can be easily solved by assuming a nomenclator (something like Rene's mod_2). You may conclude that Monica has discovered that this nomenclator is somehow mnemonic and a clever researcher may "consistently" guess the right word and retrieve the original "meaning" (which happens to be largely incoherent).

I've said in past posts that the lack of grammar disturbs me also. It's a long thread (several, actually) and I've addressed many of these aspects several times. If you look at the early part of the thread, you'll see I posted a list of concerns (plus more in other posts). Since I've listed these concerns before, I was trying to keep it simple and address only the main differences between Cheshire's and Monica's approach, so that it didn't become a total repeat of a dozen (or more) previous posts.

Her method can be replicated (regardless of what one feels about the outcome). Cheshire's cannot. It's subjective. Semitic languages did exist in the 15th century. "Proto-romance" did not.



Since the earliest posts weren't having an impact, I tried another way of approaching it in Post #16, a one-step-at-a-time approach. Solve this basic problem first and if that can be done, then deal with the grammar. As it stands, I'm still waiting for the concerns expressed in that post to be addressed.


P.S., Marco, if you spent time on this that may have been unproductive because I was unclear, then I apologize. I consider your time and your input invaluable.

(03-01-2020, 10:17 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Her method can be replicated

I'm sorry but I cannot agree *at all* with this statement.

The method is very clearly composed of several successive steps each involving subjective judgement.

There is no way that two people would come up with the same result. It is even doubtful that one person would come up with the same result on two successive attempts.

This is what Newbold experienced, and he admitted it, but he seems to have ignored that.

There is a joke among scholars of Hebrew that if you put 4 scholars to translate the Torah you will get 4 different answers. This thread, might explain a bit to everyone. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Please look at the examples for Genesis 1:1 . People still argue over the meaning. And yes I know it is Wikopedia, but is in its simplest form.

Rene, I didn't do it on all the pages, but when Monica introduced her translation sheets I took about four pages (I can't remember exactly how many) and followed her method (which is basically interpreting it as abjad Semitic) and came up with about 85% of the same results for each page. There were a few places where we did the word breaks differently, and I didn't continue with future sheets after having done a few pages and posting some of my concerns, but it came out mostly the same.

Now creating sentence structure out of it (grammar) would be subjective but this was early on before that came into the conversation and at the time I was more concerned about the problem of unusual letter frequency/position. If this turned out to be a verbose code (with larger fragments creating a block), then maybe the letter-frequency/position concerns can be addressed and then, who knows, maybe there is grammar.

(03-01-2020, 11:24 PM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a joke among scholars of Hebrew that if you put 4 scholars to translate the Torah you will get 4 different answers. This thread, might explain a bit to everyone.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Please look at the examples for Genesis 1:1 . People still argue over the meaning. And yes I know it is Wikopedia, but is in its simplest form.

I'm not surprised. All abjads involve a certain amount of interpretation (and even if they agree where to put the vowels, and which ones, then there is the interpretive aspect of the text).

I think the VMS benefits from a good hard look from someone with a background in Semitic languages. But continuing to translate page after page WITHOUT addressing the letter frequency oddities might not be the best course.

Agree... which is why I shared to the community on this forum and reddit. I do not have all the answers. And someone else moving forward with a linguistic approach can solve problems in syntax. I already know from the Hebrew speaking community from 2 years ago, that it is not the Hebrew of today. It is a Semitic language nonetheless, other wise it would have been solved many years ago.
I continue to post, hoping someone can move forward. Until then I find it intriguing to learn what the Voynich Manuscript is hiding inside, so I keep looking.

I realized late last night that many of you do not understand the letter exchange from Voynich to Hebrew, especially because the Voynich words are phonetically spelt, and Hebrew does not use the Vowels (as we know them) it the word. And how I use the definition of the words in translations. Hopefully this can help  We will play dictionary. Again English only for all words.

Voynich letter exchange page 89r2: line 1 and part of line 2.
Kahyyfarg yyfarvz rvma yyazhccrg kahfrg yyfvz yyfa rvz katb yayfg yPycccraz rvfg kayhyfg yyazrg rvsth yyabama y(symbol) arvz
 
Phonetic reading into Hebrew with breakdown: (commas used to show separate words after agglutinative breakdown)
Kah yyf arg, yyfar rvz, rvmah, yyaz H qr(g), kahpar(g), yf vz, yyfa, rvz, ka tb, yay fg, ypyf qraz, rv fg, ka yhy fg, y az rg, rvtth, yaba ama, y /\ a rvz.
 
(g) Glottal stop is an Aiyn sound like in most Semitic languages, mainly with an open ‘g’ for the glottal stop and sometimes a quick stop like the closed ‘g’.
There is no “F” in Hebrew, just a soft “p” sound and a hard “P” sound.

Hebrew words in English: (This is where letters “disappear” because the Pronunciation of the word is different than the spelling) Where the vowels are removed from the word.
Kah yp arg, ypr rz, rmh, yz H qrh, kpr, yp az,  ypa, rz, k tb, yay pg, yPyp qrh az, rv pg, k yhy pg, y az rga, rvth ybbh am, y /\, a rz.

Definition of the Hebrew words:
Kah – broken hearted
Yp – fair
Arg – weaver (first agglutinative word all separated words had commas after them)
Ypr – to breach a promise
Rz – secret
Rmh – to betray
Yz - sprinkle/unite
H – To/toward/this…
Qrh – emissions/encounter
Kpr- to cover/pitch/make atonement for
Yp – fair
Az – then/at that time
Ypa to shine forth
Rz secret
K – like
Tb – good
Yay – to sweep up
Pg – unripe fruit/premature baby
Ypyp – beautiful
Qrh – encounter
Az – then/at that time
Ru – form
Pg – unripe fruit / premature baby
K – like
Yhy – Lord’s name
Pg – unripe fruit/premature baby
Y – I, me, mine,
Az – then/at that time
Rga – rest/peace
Rvth – companion/ Ruth
Ybbh – wailing/whimpering
Am – mother
Y – I, me, mine
/\ Alchemical symbol for lodestone (A thing that is the focus of attention/magnetite)
A – oh/forever
Rz - secret