All translations proposed so far have one of two problems.
1) It only works for a few words, translating a paragraph is impossible. This is because the beginning is easy. Pick a random language, and you will be able to start translating select Voynichese words. This works with any language. The true test is making sense of larger pieces of text.
2) If they do manage to translate a larger text, the infamous "interpretative step" is involved. This is a step in the translation process where the translator uses the law of large numbers in his favors. For example, he may allow himself to add or change vowels. He will look for enough freedom to be able to turn any input into a string of existing words. The result is often still garbage.
Changing to a related language does not fix the problem. There are fundamental properties of the Voynichese system we do not understand yet. Like why is entropy so low? As long as these problems aren't addressed first, you can plug in any language and you will fail, or end up in one of the two scenarios described above.
(25-02-2022, 06:46 PM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not prepared to announce my contextual information here as I am preparing that for publication. What I am seeking is any information that would confirm or refute the idea that the text is Khazar language encoded (reversed). I realize there is no consensus on this but perhaps when my contextual information is made public, there could be consensus.
Such information does not exist either way (confirm / refute). You might want to read up on the numerous analyses that have been made of the text, including comparisons with many languages and language families from all over the world. The word structure of the MS text makes it incompatible with all of them (with the possible exception of the monosyllabic languages of the far East). Whatever 'encoding' would have been done to convert one of these languages into the Voynich MS text, would work equally well for all of them.
Furthermore, the question whether a hypothesis can be refuted or not is a very common one with respect to the Voynich MS, and it is not the right question. A proponent of any hypothesis should provide sufficient convincing evidence, and then it can be discussed.
I am curious whether you have a realistic prospect for publication.
@GeoffreySea. Sounds good, looking forward to whatever you publish / put forward.
Though wikipedia says:
"With only one word attested—oqurüm, "I have read"—Khazar was stated by the 1986 Guiness Book of Records to have the "smallest literature" of any language"
So it will be interesting to see how you negotiate this hurdle.
(26-02-2022, 08:01 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@GeoffreySea. Sounds good, looking forward to whatever you publish / put forward.
Though wikipedia says:
"With only one word attested—oqurüm, "I have read"—Khazar was stated by the 1986 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to have the "smallest literature" of any language"
So it will be interesting to see how you negotiate this hurdle.
That is absolutely false. There is a very large corpus of primary Khazar correspondence including the Kyivan Letter and the correspondence between Hasdai and Josef (Yosef), which you might look up. Most of that correspondence is in Hebrew but that's the point -- the Khazar literary class combined Hebrew and Turkic, and used Hebrew for external correspondence, which is precisely why the VM has defied translation. Few people are conversant in Hebrew and Turkic.
As to the Turkic component of Khazar language, recent work has led to the breakthrough that certain Qipchak languages are descendants of Khazar, which was itself a Qipchak language. Most of the language can therefore be assumed to be standard Qipchak, which tends have few variations. Some of the names used in the correspondence are Qipchak names, which led to the breakthrough. Thus between Qipchak and Hebrew we can reconstruct the language, and the VM will help in doing that.
Qipchak is very different from Turkish, which is what gave the ATA group difficulties.
How about a little demonstration on a specific segment of VMs text, like the outer ring of White Aries??
(26-02-2022, 08:50 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How about a little demonstration on a specific segment of VMs text, like the outer ring of White Aries??
That's the wrong approach. That approach has led to failures because it assumes the text is already in a known language. What I'm saying is that by identifying the book as Khazar which can be done on the basis of the illustrations and provenance, we can then develop a procedure. That procedure is to first elaborate the alphabet variation used, on which a start has already been made. Once the alphabet (a style of Hebrew cursive) is fixed, then we can develop a Latinized transcription of the entire text. That text should then be readable as a Qipchak dialect.
So, your suggestion is: "What I'm saying is that by identifying the book as Khazar which can be done on the basis of the illustrations and provenance, we can then develop a procedure."
Let's do that then. What illustrations do you prefer? What provenance can you cite?
(26-02-2022, 09:33 AM)GeoffreySea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The illustrations in the VM strongly suggest that it is a Turkic alchemical text -- note, NOT Turkish. The VM zodiac is a Hebrew Zodiac.
Both these statements contradict the analyses of experts in both alchemical and astrological iconography.
For alchemy:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (1998)
"The main 'alchemical' resonance is supposed to be the 'balneological' section, but here I find no parallels with alchemical manuscripts, except in a very general way. If this was an alchemical work one would expect to find some other alchemical manuscript with similar drawings - but I do not know of one."
Alain Touwaide ("Il manoscritto più misterioso, l'erbario Voynich", 2015) - The only similarity with alchemical texts mentioned here is the so-called "Alchemical Herbal", popular in Italy in the 15th century. Note that the Alchemical Herbal is only marginally about alchemy.
Jennifer Rampling ("Alchemical Traditions", in the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., 2016). I don't have the book with me, but IIRC she finds it impossible to link Voynich images with any specific alchemical tradition.
For the zodiac, one can refer to You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., where the points of view of Ewa Sniezynska-Stolot and Dieter Blume are discussed. The zodiac cycle is certainly unique (as were many zodiac cycles of the time) but it can be connected with the late-medieval European tradition. At least one specific feature (the crossbow Sagittarius) is typical of German zodiacs and has not been found anywhere else.
Of course, everything is possible, but a confutation of the opinions of these eminent scholars will require a lot of solid evidence.
(27-02-2022, 12:34 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1998) "The main 'alchemical' resonance is supposed to be the 'balneological' section, but here I find no parallels with alchemical manuscripts, except in a very general way. If this was an alchemical work one would expect to find some other alchemical manuscript with similar drawings - but I do not know of one."
I think the problem with Adam McLean's analysis is that he relies too much on making a 1:1 comparison with "classical" alchemical symbolism. In my opinion the parallels are more abstract and therefore not so easy to assign. The VMS is (and remains) unique. The imagery in the balneological section is no exception.
Hi Matthias,
I too consider alchemy in a broad sense as a promising candidate for the balneo section. But I also think of what Panofsky wrote in "Iconography and Iconology": "[we interpret images] according to the manner in which objects and events are expressed by forms under varying historical conditions. ... We should be entirely at a loss were we to depend on the literary sources alone." So I think that McLean is correct in looking for visual parallels in other alchemical works. In the absence of strong parallels, we can only regard alchemy as one of several possibilities.
While I agree that (as you write) "the VMS is (and remains) unique", this unicity is more marked for Q13; for the herbal section there are better visual parallels (e.g. the Alchemical Herbal, Trinity O.2.48 or the Oak-and-Ivy "De Herbis" illustration) and the astrological section is also more clearly connected with known visual traditions (e.g. the zodiac). The unicity of Q13 makes it impossible to reliably say anything specific. Geoffrey's claim that "the illustrations in the VM strongly suggest that it is a Turkic alchemical text" will only make sense if specific Turkic works can be actually shown to be much better parallels than other candidates (e.g. "De Balneis"). I don't think that this is impossible but, until actual evidence is provided, I prefer to follow the opinion of the experts I mentioned.