The Voynich Ninja

Hi everyone, 

Just published a new blog post exploring the idea of anYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in which I briefly compare the text of both 32v and 102r2, which both show the same herb (as discussed on a thread here about internal matching). I've found two words that could be related to the name of this flower, but more interesting, at least in my opinion, there are seven words that would be the same if not for an extra c character in the words on 102r2 (shown as an image in the blog post and also here as an attachment). 

I will likely be adding to the blog post when I have more time to write, but would love to hear your thoughts on this and if this is something previously studied.
All the best, 
Sherri

Hi, SherriMM, welcome to the forum. 

102r2 is part of the "pharmaceutical" section of the manuscript, and this section has been identified as having a greater frequency of the /eo/ bigram than the herbal folios.  See Rene's site You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for this observation, as well as for distinguishing features between other sections.  I don't know if the /e/ has been suggested specifically as a null.

(06-04-2025, 01:51 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.102r2 is part of the "pharmaceutical" section of the manuscript, and this section has been identified as having a greater frequency of the /eo/ bigram than the herbal folios.

But this eo-rich area includes the "late" Herbal A folios (f87, f90, f93, f96).

The frequency of eo in Herbal A is very inconsistent: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

@SherriMM:
Could the vocabulary of other pairs of eo-poor and eo-rich pages be linked like f32v-f102r2? It would be interesting to check (somehow, but it seems difficult) if the relation is something special or just a consequence of the presence of many similar words everywhere.