26-09-2020, 10:12 PM
This post is a follow-up to the "VCI" alphabetic interpretation of the script of the Voynich ms text, based on a verbose cipher analysis of the script. I posted about my VCI system You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and later modified it into a form I call "Slavic VCI" as described You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., all of which I attempted to summarize You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The following table presents the 25 most frequent "vords" in the Voynich ms text, first in their standard EVA transcription form, and then in my "Slavic VCI" alphabetic interpretation. Please note, for example, in line with the verbose cipher analysis, that EVA [aiin] and [ain] = Slavic VCI <o>, EVA [ol] = Slavic VCI <z>, EVA [or] = Slavic VCI <w>, EVA [qok] = Slavic VCI <n>, etc., and EVA [y] is treated as a null character, marked as Slavic VCI <#>.
The table then presents both Upper Sorbian and Czech words, suffixes, and syllables that appear similar to the Slavic VCI forms. For many of the Czech words it is also possible to include their rankings on a modern Czech word frequency list, which one can find You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Finally of course an English gloss is presented for each Upper Sorbian / Czech word or morpheme.
Naturally the correspondences are not perfect in all cases, but I find the number and proportion of very close resemblances striking. It is most difficult to be precise about the distinctions between the numerous sibilant letters and phonemes in these languages: s, z, š, ž, c, č, ć, etc. Now if it were written in literary Czech, which is well known for its phonemically precise alphabet established in the early 15th century, and if we knew for certain that no diacritical markings had faded over the centuries in the copy of the Voynich ms that we have today, then we would indeed expect to see great precision in all of these details in the script of the ms text. But if on the other hand it were written in a dialect of Sorbian, which had little or no written history at that time, and if some diacritical markings in the ms may possibly have faded over the centuries, then a certain level of imprecision in the indication of these sibilant phonemes in the readable ms text that we have would be more understandable.
Geoffrey
[attachment=4810]
The following table presents the 25 most frequent "vords" in the Voynich ms text, first in their standard EVA transcription form, and then in my "Slavic VCI" alphabetic interpretation. Please note, for example, in line with the verbose cipher analysis, that EVA [aiin] and [ain] = Slavic VCI <o>, EVA [ol] = Slavic VCI <z>, EVA [or] = Slavic VCI <w>, EVA [qok] = Slavic VCI <n>, etc., and EVA [y] is treated as a null character, marked as Slavic VCI <#>.
The table then presents both Upper Sorbian and Czech words, suffixes, and syllables that appear similar to the Slavic VCI forms. For many of the Czech words it is also possible to include their rankings on a modern Czech word frequency list, which one can find You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Finally of course an English gloss is presented for each Upper Sorbian / Czech word or morpheme.
Naturally the correspondences are not perfect in all cases, but I find the number and proportion of very close resemblances striking. It is most difficult to be precise about the distinctions between the numerous sibilant letters and phonemes in these languages: s, z, š, ž, c, č, ć, etc. Now if it were written in literary Czech, which is well known for its phonemically precise alphabet established in the early 15th century, and if we knew for certain that no diacritical markings had faded over the centuries in the copy of the Voynich ms that we have today, then we would indeed expect to see great precision in all of these details in the script of the ms text. But if on the other hand it were written in a dialect of Sorbian, which had little or no written history at that time, and if some diacritical markings in the ms may possibly have faded over the centuries, then a certain level of imprecision in the indication of these sibilant phonemes in the readable ms text that we have would be more understandable.
Geoffrey
[attachment=4810]