The Voynich Ninja

(25-09-2025, 01:07 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed, the Voynichese glyphs (except q) seem to have been designed as systematic combinations of simple strokes in pairs:

BTW, the opposite of a may occur in the manuscript. For example, this ocTho from f72r.3, not only it's a weird symmetrical word, but the first glyph looks like \). Is this intentional or a slip of the pen, I don't know. Also, I'm not even sure this is ocTho and not octho, it looks as if the part of the horizontal bar between the legs of t is missing. There are a lot of maybes in the manuscript.

[attachment=11487]

(25-09-2025, 01:30 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.BTW, the opposite of a may occur in the manuscript. For example, this ocTho from f72r.3, not only it's a weird symmetrical word, but the first glyph looks like \). Is this intentional or a slip of the pen, I don't know.

And this HAD to be one of the pages that Beinecke chose to image at lower resolution (2600/235 pixels/mm instead of the usual 3500/235).  And to omit from the multispectral scan.  

[attachment=11489]

Indeed, that is an occurrence of the stroke combination that I said "does not occur at all" in my previous post.

I cannot tell whether that "anti-a" was penned by the original Scribe or by one of those ghostly Retracers who now live rent-free in by head.  (The original trace may have looked like that of the outer star at 09:00, or the hand of the outer nymph at 12:00.)

Either way, I would bet that this glyph was meant to be a regular o, as the transcribers read it. An accidental deformation seems much more likely than a glyph that occurs only once or twice in the whole book.

Quote:Also, I'm not even sure this is ocTho and not octho, it looks as if the part of the horizontal bar between the legs of t is missing.

I would bet on oCTho, for the same reason...

Quote:There are a lot of maybes in the manuscript.

You don't say... 

(26-09-2025, 05:57 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And this HAD to be one of the pages that Beinecke chose to image at lower resolution (2600/235 pixels/mm instead of the usual 3500/235).

It was digitised at the usual resolution. For some reason, the wider (foldout) pages have been downscaled in the online images at the digital library.

(25-09-2025, 01:07 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(25-09-2025, 11:12 AM)quimqu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even a can be seen as e attached to a i => ei 
In fact, e shaped characters would be: a b c d g h s y u (even that it could be e n) and i shaped characters would be: j l m n r

Indeed, the Voynichese glyphs (except q) seem to have been designed as systematic combinations of simple strokes in pairs:
 
(The "red lines" are missing in that image, sorry.)

The column of the ligature should not be in the table. Instead there should be a column for the h glyph, which I believe is a single stroke.  The two gyphs in that column would be Ch and Ih.

Look at this one... d really seems to be first written as e