The Voynich Ninja

JKP, thank you for the interesting plant ID idea.

Regarding the symbolism of the parts of the plant, one can make a connection between the white flowers at the top and the White Rose of York badge. (See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for basic information about this symbol.) I have attached a couple files of illustrations of this symbol. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The words EVA [otaim dam alam] which I propose mean Middle English "fob sib isib" ("deceiver/cheat related by blood or marriage, closely related" and also "deceiver/cheat branch linked/kin to the root") are written right next to the bottommost part of the bottommost leftmost leaf of the plant. One can make the argument that this represents the Yorkist view of the Lancastrian pretender to the throne and his actual low position in the family tree, in contrast with the position of the Yorkist white flowers at the top of the family tree. 

It is also possible that there may be a small tinge of red colouring on the tip of this part of the leaf right next to the word EVA [alam] (Middle English "isib"), although it is very difficult for me to see this clearly enough to make a definite determination of this colouration. The red rose is known as the traditional symbol of the House of Lancaster, although it should be noted that historians dispute the extent to which the red rose was actively used as a Lancastrian symbol during the time period of the Wars of the Roses, as opposed to its later use by Henry VII of England in his Tudor rose emblem combining the red and white roses to symbolise the unification of the Houses of Lancaster and York by his marriage to Elizabeth of York in 1486.

Geoffrey

The attached diagram shows the House of York family tree. Note that in this diagram, the "root" (Edward III) is at the top, so it should be viewed as an upside down version of the illustration on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . One can see how in this diagram of the family tree, the House of Lancaster is a small branch (at the bottom when viewed upside down) while the House of York "flowers" (at the top when viewed upside down). Note that Henry VII and his Tudor descendants postdate the likely date of the Voynich ms parchment. In the time period of the likely date of the ms parchment, this family tree would go as far as Richard of York, Duke of York (1411-1460). 

Geoffrey

[attachment=5469]

Geoffrey, if you make a thread about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and then make it about your theory, things will get confusing. Please add everything about your theory to its designated thread.

I think I finally figured out Voynich ms text word structure, or at least one key piece of it.

I was curious about all three of my Middle English words in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. text, "fob sib isib", ending in the letter "b". And I had this crazy idea that they all look like they could possibly also spell Middle English words if they were read backwards! 

Indeed my hunch was proven correct:

ME bof, alt. sp. of bef - "beef"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

ME bis - "a precious kind of linen or cotton cloth; a garment made of this fabric (as worn by the nobility along with purple)"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

ME bisi - "busy, occupied, engaged or involved in an activity; diligent, assiduous, devoted (to a task or duty), industrious; intent (upon s.th.), desirous, eager; of warriors: eager to fight, bold; solicitous, attentive, concerned; anxious, fearful, worried; active, busy, vigorous; constant, vigorous; careful (calculation, speech); etc."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So here's the key to Voynich ms text word structure: Every word in it can spell a Middle English word both when read forwards and when read backwards!!

This also leads to my hypothesis about the function of the character EVA [y]: It serves as a "wild card" letter or character, which can be read as any letter or no letter at all, in order to facilitate the spelling of more words that can be read as Middle English words both forwards and backwards!

Finally, here is the motivation for this whole word structure design, in line with the "Yorkist" theme I have advanced in recent posts:

With the "wild card" letter/character at the end, the same word can be read "YORK" forwards and "#ROY" = "King" backwards!!

Indeed in the middle ring of words of the very page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that David Jackson so presciently identified as representing the House of York in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., there appears the Voynich word EVA [chory]. Now if we make one small adjustment to my provisional Middle English letter correspondence system, to allow EVA [o] to represent Middle English "o" as well as "ou"/"u", then this word [chory] spells "YOR#" = "YORK" when read forwards, and "#ROY" = "King" when read backwards!!

Geoffrey

OK, keen as I am to push this theory forwards, I think we're getting carried away with the language.
First off, we should be talking about Middle English, not Old English (which is English before the Norman conquest).
Secondly, two languages were spoken in the 15th century - Middle English (the lower classes) and Anglo-French (the ruling class), more properly called Anglo-Norman. Oh, and Latin of course.
By the early 15th century, Middle English was starting to be used by the nobility simply to forge the new independent state of England, they were moving away from Anglo-French, as the two states were in almost perpetual war by this point. The two languages were being heavily influenced by each other, but A-F was becoming an ideal language like Latin, used in administrative and legal situations but not in the home.

So...
It was spelt REI / REY, not ROY in Middle English 15th century texts (see the excellent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for a corpus from the time). Wikipedia also says: "For example, Anglo-Norman legal documents use the phrase "del Rey" (of the king). This is identical to modern Spanish but different from the modern French "du Roi"."
In Middle Engish it is KING (or a close derivative).
I don't think it makes sense to switch between Anglo-Norman and Middle English on the same page, although I'm always open to a suggestion of a pun!

Also, I'm afraid suggesting that somebody wrote "fob sib isib" on a page and expected this to be understood just doesn't work. It's ungrammatical nonsense. Look at the 15th century citation given for the use of the word:

Quote:Makeþ of lyer a lang cart to lede alle þese oþere, As fobbes [A: fabulers] and faitours þat on hure fet rennen.

Which I think means something like
A liar can make a dray cart to lead all these others, as cheaters and vagabonds look most fair when running

sib and isib are basically the same word, used in different contexts.

I can add a few statistical details about the [chory] = "YORK/#ROY" word in the center ring of text on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. House of York imagery page:

It is true that I made the adjustment to allow EVA [o] to represent Middle English "o" as well as "ou"/"u". However, I also note that the only alternative possibility for a Voynich word to represent "YORK/#ROY", even according to my adjusted correspondence system, would be [chairy], but this word does not occur at all in the entire ms text.

Further, [chory] itself only occurs 12 times in the entire ms text. Also, the center ring of text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. only has 10 words in it. I have calculated the exact probability that a word that occurs 12 times in a 37886-word text (the entire ms text) would happen to occur in that particular ring of 10 words due to random chance:

1 - [(37886-10)!*(37886-12)! / (37886!*(37886-22)!)]  =  0.003163...

Thus, since there is only a 0.003163 probability that this particular word occurred in this particular place in the ms due to random chance, one may argue that there is a 99.68% probability that this occurrence is not due to random chance.

Geoffrey

(19-04-2021, 07:07 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, keen as I am to push this theory forwards, I think we're getting carried away with the language.
First off, we should be talking about Middle English, not Old English (which is English before the Norman conquest).
Secondly, two languages were spoken in the 15th century - Middle English (the lower classes) and Anglo-French (the ruling class). Oh, and Latin of course.
By the early 15th century, Middle English was starting to be used by the nobility simply to forge the new independent state of England, they were moving away from Anglo-French, as the two states were in almost perpetual war by this point.

So...
It was spelt REI / REY, not ROY in Middle English 15th century texts (see the excellent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for a corpus from the time). Wikipedia also says: "For example, Anglo-Norman legal documents use the phrase "del Rey" (of the king). This is identical to modern Spanish but different from the modern French "du Roi"."
In Middle Engish it is KING (or a close derivative).
I don't think it makes sense to switch between Anglo-Norman and Middle English on the same page, although I'm always open to a suggestion of a pun!

Also, I'm afraid suggesting that somebody wrote "fob sib isib" on a page and expected this to be understood just doesn't work. It's ungrammatical nonsense. Look at the 15th century citation given for the use of the word:

Quote:Makeþ of lyer a lang cart to lede alle þese oþere, As fobbes [A: fabulers] and faitours þat on hure fet rennen.

Which I think means something like
A liar can make a dray cart to lead all these others, as cheaters and vagabonds look most fair when running

sib and isib are basically the same word, used in different contexts.

David, thank you for all the comments and for the critical feedback. I appreciate it. I want to get this right.

I understand that the syntax of "fob sib isib" is a mysterious mess. The only reason I can offer for now is "alliteration when read backwards".

But for the spelling "roy" for "king", I have a stronger case. Consider these examples cited in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: 

"You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1670 : Many sall repente that in his rowtte rydez For the reklesse roy so rewlez hym selfen."

"You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.3200 : This roye ryall, as romawns vs tellis, Reuerence the Romayns in his riche table."

"You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.219/1 : Vndir þe ryallest roye of rente and renowne Now am I regent of rewle þis region in reste."

Geoffrey

David, I also want to emphasize that I am open to the possibility of parts of the ms text being written in Anglo-French or Anglo-Norman as well as in Middle English. Yes, it is a "Middle English theory", but more specifically now it is a "Middle English Yorkist theory", and the Yorkists may well have used Anglo-French / Anglo-Norman words or written in Anglo-French / Anglo-Norman in some places in the ms. Again, the explanation for the mixing of languages would be to maintain the forwards/backwards words concept of "YORK"/"#ROY". However, I wish to point out that every word in "fous", "irour thee#", "fob sib isib", and "York/#roy" appears in the Middle English Compendium, so I have not had to rely on Anglo-French / Anglo-Norman to explain any words yet.

I called the thread "Middle English theory" so it still covers more ground in case you change your mind 

(19-04-2021, 07:56 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, I wish to point out that every word in "fous", "irour thee#", "fob sib isib", and "York/#roy" appears in the Middle English Compendium, so I have not had to rely on Anglo-French / Anglo-Norman to explain any words yet.

Roy is French, not English - the borrowed word imported into middle English is spelt Roi/e or even Roye. But I will admit there is more than enough ambiguity in the spelling to allow for your interpretation.
Roy appears to have been a common enough name at the time.

Interestingly enough, the dictionary gives three meanings for Roi/e, the middle one hadn't occurred to me before.

Quote:(a) A king; (b) ?a man, fellow; © as name.