In an article I found a short list to answer this question. Instead of asking how the VMS could be deciphered, you ask the question the other way around.
Quote:There are several reasons why it remains undeciphered:
1. Lack of context: Without knowing the context, background, or purpose of the manuscript, it is difficult to develop a framework for deciphering its language.
2. Unique script: The manuscript’s script is unlike any known writing system, with no clear predecessor or parallel to aid in deciphering.
3. Possible coded or invented language: If the manuscript is written in a code or deliberately invented language, decoding it becomes significantly more challenging.
4. Limited sample size: With only one known example of the Voynich Manuscript, researchers cannot compare it to other texts written in the same language or script to look for patterns or clues.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
My thoughts:
1. We haven't yet found a good crib/"block paradigm"
2. We don't yet have a definite and precise idea of the structure of Voynichese
3. We don't know in which archives or sources we will find documents that will help put the Voynich and its authorship in context
I think sample size in isolation wouldn't help us much. Imagine if we had a second text in this script - how different would things be? I guess it depends. Imagine the Voynich all in typical Currier A and the hypothetical second document all in typical Currier B. In that case we wouldn't be one bit closer to a solution. (Maybe we'd be even further?) And what if we had 20 more documents, Currier A all the way through to Currier Z. I don't see how this would help.
I think the first point, more context, would certainly help. For example if it had been found in the town where it was made. Or if the drawings were recognizable as a copy from a known herbal. Such scenarios would give clearer avenues of attack. Therefore I think attempts at contextualization, however small, are always a worthy effort.
(04-05-2023, 08:59 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the first point, more context, would certainly help.
if the drawings were recognizable as a copy from a known herbal.
Therefore I think attempts at contextualization, however small, are always a worthy effort.
Finding more documentary evidence to put the Voynich manuscript in more context is vital. There is still a huge amount of difficult work to be done in this area. There are still so many aspects where there is documentary research to be done. There could be just one document which once found would make a huge difference to our understanding of the Voynich manuscript or a series of documents may help us put the pieces together.
(04-05-2023, 09:42 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There could be just one document which once found would make a huge difference to our understanding of the Voynich manuscript or a series of documents may help us put the pieces together.
Since I consider the VMS to be more of a composite work, I would assume that comparisons with various other manuscripts would lead to the goal. Of course, it would be nice to find the ONE manuscript.
(05-05-2023, 01:42 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (04-05-2023, 09:42 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There could be just one document which once found would make a huge difference to our understanding of the Voynich manuscript or a series of documents may help us put the pieces together.
Since I consider the VMS to be more of a composite work, I would assume that comparisons with various other manuscripts would lead to the goal. Of course, it would be nice to find the ONE manuscript.
Well if you find one of Nick Pelling's "block paradigms" then just one document could be significant to decipher Voynichese and therefore the whole manuscript. You could find a lost document explaining what Voynichese is and how it works. You might discover some of the missing pages of the Voynich manuscript. There is unfortunately a huge element of luck in this kind of hunting. However it is clear that so far our exploration of the archives for Voynich related documents has a long way to go, so I suspect that there is plenty waiting to be discovered.
I think one reason the Voynich is undeciphered is that there is too little specialisation going on. If people developed specialisms in certain areas then collectively we would have much more insight into the manuscript. Instead we seem to have many people covering the same ground as other researchers. There seems a reluctance amongst most researchers to specialise. However there are clearly some researchers who specialise in specific areas. There is so much scope for specialisation as the Voynich is a very long document with so many aspects to it and research in any one area could be key to the manuscript as a whole.
Context is certainly a significant requirement. Context in language would be great, if it could be discovered, but those who think they've translated the vords have not found much support. Pelling's paradigm is just too cumbersome to function. Has there been a single candidate - in how many years now?
Context is found in the illustrations. The Vms is composite in its topics, therefore composite in its sources. Judging from the illustrations, the topics include botany, cosmology, astrology, pharmacology and so on. A lot of effort has been put into various investigations. Botanical identifications, even those presumed to be correct, have not provided further information.
However, the ONE has already been found. Back in 2014, IIRC. The ONE and then the OTHER. The comparison of the VMs cosmos with the cosmic illustrations found in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334. The context is found not only in the specific details of the cosmic structure, but also in the provenance of the two documented manuscripts. BNF Fr. 565 was made in Paris c. 1410. Harley 334 was made in Paris in the second quarter of 15th century. It's not the author or the general subject that provides context for VMs investigation, it's the shared though unusual cosmic structure, the shared Parisian origins, and the common dating to the first half of the 1400s which matches with the VMs C-14.
The cosmic boundary in BNF Fr 565 has 43 undulations; the VMs nebuly line has 43 ambiguous undulations. And a key factor in VMs interpretation across different illustrations is the recognition of the intentional creation of ambiguity, such as White Aries.
Harley 334 has an illustration of a generic mermaid and her companions; the VMs has an illustration of a non-generic mermaid [Melusine of Luxembourg] and her companions. Melusine was the reputed ancestress of the Valois Dukes of Berry and Burgundy (et al.) History provides verified context of the ducal connections.
There aren't many, but there are several pages where history provides some context to the VMs, if that particular bit of history is known, because it has often become obscure from the modern perspective, like the hereditary, Melusine-Valois connection, the traditional name of the nebuly line, the French word for an obscure, heraldic fur. The proper things were put in the proper places. What's missing is context, a context that appears to have existed in the latter part of the C-14 dates or before 1450. The VMs is probably contemporary, not subsequently faked. The dualistic interpretation of the heraldry on White Aries is a clear indicator of deception. Yet, there are clear indications of Christian religious information, but they are also "tucked away". Perhaps because they hold the keys.
(05-05-2023, 07:10 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think one reason the Voynich is undeciphered is that there is too little specialisation going on.
I am not sure whether a specialist can solve the Voynich puzzle better than a generalist. Certainly he/she can work on individual aspects of the manuscript better, but on the other hand, the generalist may be more able to make cross connections (imagery <> text) across sections.
For me, the reason why it has not been deciphered is at a higher level than the points in the first two posts here, for example: lack of context, lack of cribs.
The reason for me is that this text doesnt 'work' like known ciphers. As a result, we don't even know if there is no meaning at all behind the text, a heavily diluted meaning or more.
Wondering what is the language assumes there is meaning and assumes that the language somehow is still apparent after the 'encoding process'. We don't even know if either of these is the case.
We have quite a bit of context. A relatively precise date and a rough idea of the region, but this does not help us because of the higher level problem.
There are plenty of good candidate cribs in the MS but they just don't work because of the higher level problem.
What would certainly help a lot (obviously) would be finding original notes from the author(s) / scribes.
It would be like a spoiler.
Edit: comparison:
I find it interesting to compare the Voynich MS with the equally undeciphered Dorabella cipher.
For this, we have an exact context. We know who wrote it, when, for whom. We even know that the reader was expected to understand it quickly (but that did not happen). The problem here is primarily that it is too short.
The Voynich MS on the other hand is very long. It is probably equivalent with 100 enciphered letters.
Then again, for modern AI techniques, it is quite short.