The Voynich Ninja

As I was working on some difficult issues in my own efforts to interpret a passage of the Voynich ms text according to my own hypothesis, an idea has occurred to me:

The seemingly nonsensical repetition of very similar looking vords is a well-known feature of the ms text. Well, what if we treated the second and following vords of any apparent "rhyming" vord sequence as nonsensical, and only assigned meaning to the first vord in any such sequence?

By "rhyming" I mean that in a sequence of consecutive vords, each vord ends with the same two glyphs. For example a couple of such sequences that I came across include [dal shal] and [char sar]. 

I wonder what the statistical analysis of the Voynich ms text would look like, if we simply removed the second and following vords of all such sequences? 

Rhyming a meaningful word with a following nonsense word/syllable is a rather common feature of nursery rhymes and similar material. In English for example, such phrases abound: In the phrase "holy moly", the first word has meaning, and the second word is a nonsensical rhyming word. 

It is possible that further refinements of this idea may be necessary: For example, the first line of f75r [kchedy  kary]   [okeey  qokar  shy  kchedy  qotar  shedy] has multiple "rhyming" vords and phrases, but not any two of them consecutively. But for an initial investigation, the simple method of removing rhyming vords in consecutive sequences should be a good start, and the rule is clear and explicit for the purpose of statistical analysis. 

Geoffrey

I think Holy moly is a clean up version of Holy moses - first used in print in 1892,so it has quite a pedigree. 
But it's an interesting idea. Are you trying it out?

But you can't just drop the moly and keep the same meaning...

(12-10-2020, 06:38 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think Holy moly is a clean up version of Holy moses - first used in print in 1892,so it has quite a pedigree. 
But it's an interesting idea. Are you trying it out?

Yes, it's just a hypothesis, one of many, but it's worth keeping the idea in mind if and when the text seems excessively repetitive with "rhyming" vords.

(12-10-2020, 06:55 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But you can't just drop the moly and keep the same meaning...

Sure, that was perhaps not the best example of the concept. Another example is a silly children's rhyming song that I still remember being taught in an elementary school music class:

"Mumbo jumbo, Christopher Columbo /
Sitting on the sidewalk, chewing bubble gumbo"

"Mumbo jumbo" is of course a well known rhyming phrase that itself means "unintelligible nonsense". The song then extends the "-umbo" rhyme to the two words at the ends of the lines, starting from the "-um-" in "Columbus" and "bubble gum".

If one were attempting to decipher a message and this were the original content, one would have to distinguish between the silly nonsensical rhyming parts and the parts of the message with actual meaning.

I think you're thinking of the pretend Latin schoolchildren gibber - you add a Romance style syllable at the end (can't remember what it's called).
ie Itus timeus forus dinnerus!

(14-10-2020, 07:51 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think you're thinking of the pretend Latin schoolchildren gibber - you add a Romance style syllable at the end (can't remember what it's called).
ie Itus timeus forus dinnerus!

This sounds like Lockerby's "abbreviated Latin deciphering" of the Voynich manuscript. I believe it was JKP who pointed out "Latin" passages such as the following in Lockerby's interpretation:

"…ileumeses esetarus estlietnus oilanrus eteum rusetum ferolioque lietquees esqueota estoil etorus eteum…"

That really looks medieval.
Especially the wrong spelling.
"forus" should be written separately. "for us".