The Voynich Ninja

I would like to express here my view of the Voynich text and why I consider many works to be wrong from my point of view.
This work was actually intended for the Malta Congress, but like many it was never finished. I now thought I could publish at least part of it here as a PDF file.

I look at it from the point of view of my work:
Contributions based on EVA alphabet or code are wrong.
Statistics with other transcription files as questionable and in some cases unusable.
Attempts to create a text using far-fetched explanations just to make sense of characters that seem to repeat.

I may now offend some people and not appreciate their work. This is the result of research. Therefore, do not expect any apology from me.


Ich möchte hier einmal meine Ansicht über den Voynich-Text zum Ausdruck bringen und warum ich viele Arbeiten aus meiner Warte als falsch betrachte.
Diese Arbeit war eigentlich für den Malta Kongress gedacht, ist aber wie viele nie fertig geworden. Ich habe mir jetzt gedacht ich könnte zumindest einen Teil davon hier als PDF Datei veröffentlichen.

Ich betrachte anhand meiner Arbeit:
Beiträge wo auf Basis von EVA-Alphabet oder Code erstellt wurden als falsch.
Statistiken mit anderen Transkriptionsdateien als Fragwürdig und in manchen Fällen als unbrauchbar.
Versuche einen Text zu erstellen mit Hilfe von weit hergeholten Erklärungen, nur um einzelne Zeichen wo sich zu wiederholen scheinen, eine Sinn zu geben.

Ich möge jetzt manchen Leuten vor den Kopf stossen, und deren Arbeiten nicht würdigen. Dies ist das Ergebnis auf Grund einer Forschung. Daher erwartet keine Entschuldigung von mir.

[attachment=7565][attachment=7564]

If I understand your illustrations correctly, you essentially distinguish glyphs with pointed and rounded corners. Have you already thought about how often and at which place these similar glyphs appear and whether actually a pattern is recognizable that a pairwise connection lets recognize ? Only then, in my opinion, it would be possible to speculate about a secret script of whatever kind.

I'm not sure that variants can be reliably categorized. All glyphs have variants with more or less curvy parts, more or less sharp angles. When there is a continuum the feature is probably not significant.

Is that so difficult to understand?
If several scribes have the same feature in one detail and in different places, then one can no longer speak of a variant of writing. Hence the different examples across the book, and so that the example always describes one scribe.
If you are now looking for a writing variant, you have to do it on one page and with the same writer. One makes the corner sharper than another. But the characteristic remains the same for all writers.
Here, intention is in the first place and not coincidence.
But I think I explained that in the PDF.
If you want to know about individual scribes, ask Lisa or do it yourself.

About EVA-k, how would you categorize these? Is the crossbar connected on top of the vertical or not? How close is close enough?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[attachment=7569]

@Nablator
I can't tell you like that. But I know how to correct the height without it being immediately obvious.

[attachment=7570]
This writer doesn't have it so under control, or do you want to tell me that everything is the same?

PS:
I don't think they are 3 different characters, even though I find all 3 in the VM.
I think example 3 is just a necessary correction.

[attachment=7571]
What should perhaps also be said.
Variant 3 makes the whole thing a problem. The ink also runs down the vertical line.
Example:

(03-09-2023, 05:45 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Variant 3 makes the whole thing a problem. The ink also runs down the vertical line.

Many problematic "variant 3", it is unclear if the connection is a bit lower than the top of the vertical downstroke. Where the quill is lifted is plainly visible (at the bottom), so I don't think these are "one-stroke".

(03-09-2023, 05:45 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Variant 3 makes the whole thing a problem. The ink also runs down the vertical line.

Many problematic "variant 3": it is often unclear if the connection is a bit lower than the top of the vertical downstroke.

Where the quill is lifted is plainly visible (at the bottom), so I don't think these are ever "one-stroke".

[attachment=7572]
But the enlargement shows me that the horizontal line has not been drawn through. There is a gap.
Consider the flow behaviour of ink when new ink hits a wet spot.
When the nib is applied, it has more ink. If you apply the nib twice in the same place, the ink will run down the damp spot. About the same as raindrops.