The Voynich Ninja

(22-04-2021, 05:55 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I once argued that, if you look hard enough, you will be able to find evidence for every possible theory about the Voynich MS.

You may be surprised to know that there is an unexpected link between the Voynich MS and the house of York. This is related to the secret sale of the MS to Voynich. His colleague book dealer Tammaro de Marinis was one of the very few who knew some of the details of this sale.

He wrote in 1947 (17 years after the death of Voynich), that the selection of books acquired by Voynich originate from the collection of: "Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal of York, Bishop of Frascati, passionate collector of manuscripts".

Now before anyone gets excited about this: what he wrote may or may not be true, but either way it is just a coincidence.

Cardinal Henry Stuart has nothing to do with the House of York, whih died out with Richard III in 1485, as second son of king James he has the traditionalt title of Duke of York, he is Duke of York, cardinal bishop of Frascati (first son: Prince of Wales, second son: Duke of York, that is so even nowadays)

Well, there goes that even flimsiest of links

More seriously, if someone proposes "N" different (mutually exclusive) theories about the Voynich manuscript, then certainly N-1 of them will be false.

There is also a clear logic that says that all of them are false, as long as they are all based on the same approach.

(22-04-2021, 09:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is also a clear logic that says that all of them are false, as long as they are all based on the same approach.

That's not true. If a theory is that a given plant on a given page of the manuscript is the same as a plant selected at random from a very large book of plants then it is possible that one is true and others are false even if they are reached at by the same method.

This is a simple refutation.

More generally this is also true as how ever much evidence supports a given theory (outside the field of mathematics itself) there is always a probability that it is false. So if one considers the example of a genetic algorithm this is a much better method of problem solving than a purely random selection approach. It has some random element to it and therefore can arrive at different solutions to a problem where only one is correct, for example like trying to find the optimal solution to a travelling salesman problem. The same applies to many other intelligent problem solving approaches. I think it also applies to a lot of human reasoning as it relies on random occurrences or random observations pushing a theory down one road or another.

I will just point out that I have not yet seen in this thread any actual critical analytical response to my proposed readings and interpretations of the center ring of text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or of the first line of text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , nor to my analysis of how the English/French Yorkist theory explains certain features of the Voynich ms text. 

Geoffrey

(22-04-2021, 09:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More seriously, if someone proposes "N" different (mutually exclusive) theories about the Voynich manuscript, then certainly N-1 of them will be false.

There is also a clear logic that says that all of them are false, as long as they are all based on the same approach.

I know I made a lot of mistakes in pursuing my wrong-headed Judaeo-Greek theory and incorrect Old Polish theory. I apologize for my stubbornness about those mistakes. I'm sorry. I am grateful to everyone who criticized those theories, because I never would have been able to see my mistakes otherwise. I never would have been able to take a fresh look and even consider the Middle English/Anglo-Norman Yorkist theory, if it hadn't been for the relentless analytical criticism and critical feedback I received in response to my proposals and my (excessively) extended arguments for my previous mistaken theories. Again, I apologize. I'm sorry.

Geoffrey

(22-04-2021, 03:40 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I know I made a lot of mistakes in pursuing my wrong-headed Judaeo-Greek theory and incorrect Old Polish theory ... Middle English/Anglo-Norman Yorkist theory

What are the main lessons you learned from these first two failed theories, that helped you ensure that your third theory is avoiding the same pitfalls?

(22-04-2021, 04:40 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-04-2021, 03:40 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I know I made a lot of mistakes in pursuing my wrong-headed Judaeo-Greek theory and incorrect Old Polish theory ... Middle English/Anglo-Norman Yorkist theory

What are the main lessons you learned from these first two failed theories, that helped you ensure that your third theory is avoiding the same pitfalls?

I will focus on the lessons in terms of the analysis of the text, although there have been emotional and other lessons as well.

The main lesson I learned from my mistakes in the Judaeo-Greek theory was that I cannot allow an excessive ambiguity in the possible letter value of each character in the script. In that theory, I was allowing any of the characters EVA [d], [p], or [f] to represent any of the letter values "p", "ph", or "b", any of the characters [k], [s], or [sh] with an open loop to represent any of the letter values "t", "th", or "d", either of the characters [t] or [q] to represent any of the letter values "k", "kh", or "g", any of the characters [l], [in], or [sh] with a closed loop to represent either of the letter values "m" or "n", and the character [r] to represent either of the letter values "r" or "l".

With that much excessive ambiguity and that large a degree of freedom, it was possible to twist almost any Voynich text into some sequence of Greek words, which I then contorted with tortured syntax into an "interpretation" of the text. 

The Old Polish theory actually contained significant improvements over the Judaeo-Greek theory in terms of certain points of methodology. For example, I adopted the "verbose cipher" concept that Rene, Marco, and Koen have all discussed and analyzed. Thus, for example, only EVA [t]/[p] represented "p", only [ot]/[op] represented "b", only [k]/[f] represented "t", only [ok]/[of] represented "d', only [qot]/[qop] represented "m", only [qo] without [t]/[p] represented "n", only [l] represented "s", only [ol] represented "z", only [r] represented "l", only [or] represented "w", only [s] represented "r", and only [sh] represented "rz". Methodologically, that is a significant improvement over the excessive ambiguity in my Judaeo-Greek character/letter correspondence system described above. 

However, the result was still jumbled sequences of Polish words, which I again contorted with tortured syntax into an "interpretation" of the text.

It's true that when I began looking into the idea of Middle English, around page 2 of this thread, I started by following the same method as in my Old Polish theory. I do have the partial excuse that I began by thinking of it as a joke, since at first I didn't believe that the Voynich ms text could possibly represent English of all languages. 

I credit Marco Ponzi's critical feedback in another thread on this forum for forcing me to refocus on function words as a first step, and that is the point of departure for the serious analysis of my current theory, beginning on page 3 of this thread.

In my current Middle English/Anglo-Norman Yorkist theory presented here beginning with page 3 of the thread, the key improvement in my methodological approach is that I have stopped contorting and torturing the syntax of my interpretations of the text. I am very fortunate in one huge respect: I am a native speaker of a modern version of the primary language that I am interpreting this time. I have a better sense of what is or is not plausible English syntax. So in my work on this theory, unlike my previous work, if I cannot interpret a word or phrase using plausible English syntax, I do not attempt to force an exact interpretation of the word or phrase. 

Case in point: In my reading and interpretation of the center ring of text on f73v (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. earlier in this thread), because this text seems to represent more of a French language base with French function words and grammatical words, when I got to the part where I could not figure out a completely grammatical interpretation of the 8th and 9th words of the 10-word ring of text with plausible syntax within the phrase, I did not attempt to force an exact rendering of the interpretation of those words. I asked others for assistance.

In fact, unfortunately, as fascinating as David Jackson's theory of the Yorkist imagery of page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is, and as much as it helped me to recognize the key word EVA [chory] = "YORK", which I now believe is a key to the whole cipher (see the final two paragraphs of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. earlier in this thread), I have forced myself to set aside the continued reading and interpretation of the rest of the text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for now, because I believe there is too much risk of my making too many significant mistakes in the reading and interpretation of the language the author uses on that page. 

I believe that the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , which I read and interpret You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. earlier in this thread, has more of an English language base with English function words and grammatical words. I was able to interpret that line completely. So for now, I will focus my efforts mainly on "Dialect A" pages and sections, since my working hypothesis is now that Dialect A reflects a primarily English language base with English function words and grammatical words, whereas Dialect B reflects a primarily French language base with French function words and grammatical words. 

Unfortunately, my knowledge of botany and herbalism is terrible.    And all I have to work with in Dialect A is Herbal A, Pharmaceutical A, and folio pages 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. . So, folio 58 pages it is then! For now anyway. I recently posted in this thread a reading and interpretation of the three-word phrase centered at the bottom of the (long!) first paragraph on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , and I made a brief reference to the first four words of the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , and asked others for assistance (posed as a "challenge") with the particularly difficult fifth word of that line.

I hope this brief summary demonstrates some of the differences between my methodological approach to my current Middle English/Anglo-Norman Yorkist theory vs. the mistakes I made in my methods of approaching my previous, erroneous theories.

Geoffrey

One of the characteristics of Old and Middle English (I mention both because they have letters in common and because there is a transitional period between them where almost anything could be retained from the older style for a while) is that it has more letters than many alphabets. Not only does it include thorn and wyn, but also w (sometimes superseding wyn, sometimes both used), k, and frequent use of "y". Sometimes the "y" is substituted for "i", sometimes it is used together with "i" (i.e., sometimes a distinction is made between them).

Also, if you've looked at Middle English scripts, you might notice that Anglicana in particular has a funny "e" that looks more like an "o" to modern eyes (some people struggle with reading this letter). I thought it was just a variant "e" shape at first (years ago) and then I came across a manuscript that specifically used modern "e" in some instances and the o-shaped "e" in others and it jumped out at me that it was a pronunciation difference (you could see this by pronouncing the words in your head) and then the lightbulb went on. The funny-e (the o-shaped e) is like Scandinavian ø which is often transcribed as "e" (as in names) because the sounds are not super far apart.

That made it much easier to read Anglicana script. All I had to do was think ø when I saw the funny-e shape and the words made sense.

The consequence of this is a large working alphabet. In Danish, they have the letters that are familiar in English but also ae ø and å, three extra letters at the end of the alphabet that are integral to many words. In Middle English, some scribes basically included ø as an extra letter in cases where they used both e and ø (the majority do not seem to have done this, but I have seen it).


So, applying these thoughts to the VMS... it's difficult enough to map VMS characters to the Latin alphabet. In Middle English, there are numerous extra letters/sounds to consider.

JKP, thank you for the feedback about Old and Middle English. I appreciate it very much.

Part of my explanation for how the writing system works, and how English (and French, Latin words, etc.) was written in it, is that great effort was made to make as many words as possible resemble the spelling of "YORK" (EVA [chory] according to my hypothesis) in certain ways. In particular, the author wanted to make as many words as possible begin with his "Y" character (EVA [ch]) and as many words as possible end with his "K" character (EVA [y]). Further, the author simply wanted to use the characters in this word "YORK" (EVA [chory]) as frequently as possible no matter what.

[The "diary hypothesis" that I mentioned in the post about Edward, 2nd Duke of York, becomes important here. According to this hypothesis, it was a fanciful writing system and cipher that the author never intended for anyone else to ever be able to read or understand. That would explain many facts about the manuscript, including the lack of corrections and the lack of any other examples of this writing system in any other known extant document. (If it were a practical "Yorkist cipher" of the 15th century, it would require some kind of near-conspiracy theory to explain the lack of any other surviving examples of it.)]

So it appears to me that the English letters "k", "c", "g", "ʒ" as well as "gh" and "ng" were all written as his "K" character, EVA [y]. And it also appears that "i" is sometimes written as his "Y" character, EVA [ch], which is natural and also consistent with your comments, JKP, about the frequent use of "y" and sometimes its substitution for "i" in Old and Middle English. Of course, in a fanciful diary cipher, the author did not necessarily have to follow all of the same standard conventions for such distinctions as the one you mention between "y" and "iy". Alternatively, in the case of the occurrence of the latter letter combination at the end of a word, the Voynich ms author would have written any such word backwards in order to make the "Y" character (EVA [ch]) appear at the beginning of the word as written, to make it begin with the same letter as the word "YORK" (EVA [chory]). Likewise, any word beginning with English "k", "c", "g", or "ʒ" would also usually be written backwards, in order to make the "K" character (EVA [y]) appear at the end of the word as written, to make it end with the same letter as the word "YORK" (EVA [chory]).

Geoffrey
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct." - Niels Bohr