The Voynich Ninja

If there are any examples from f70v1 or f71r, I can make channel split images from the MSIs. They are a bit higher resolution and much better at separating inks from the vellum.

(06-06-2025, 02:31 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can see that the tip of the weird e glyph in y keeody wasn't very visible and that the plumes of r and n were very faint, but it still looks like a single character written once and not a retracing, but that's about it.

So we seem to agree that on those (and several other) words there are both dark strokes and very faint ones.  The dispute is whether both were drawn at the same time, and came out different because of ink flow effects; or the word was written once, was or became faint, and then was carefully, but not always completely, retraced with dark ink.  Is that a good summary of the issue?

As evidence for the second view, let me point again to my example #3 in this gallery



(Note that the label is almost upside down here.)

In this image, the dark strokes create two invalid glyphs, a reversed "i" with serif and an incomplete infinity symbol.  I don't see how those symbols could be interpreted as valid glyphs with some parts missing.  Whoever drew the dark strokes definitely drew them in the wrong place and with the wrong shape.   I can make sense of the "infinity" only by assuming that the original was a "ch" (whose ligature I think I can see poking out in the middle of the "infinity") that was retraced by someone who mistook the two "e" strokes for two joined circles.  And the reversed "i" before it was perhaps an "e" whose bottom half was too faint, and was mistook for a straight stroke with a serif.

In example #4, the "i" stroke after the "a"/"o" would be a valid glyph, but the word endings "oi" and "ai" are very rare, if they occur at all.  On the other hand "or" and "ar" are very common words; and indeed I think I can see a very faint "r"-plume that starts at that "i" stroke, glances off the nymph's hand, and curls above the gap between that "i" and the next glyph.   I am sure that anyone who was familiar with the Voynichese alphabet (like the Scribe who wrote most of the VMs) and with "typical" word patterns would have guessed an "r" there.

These examples are all from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. because it is the image I had at hand at the time.  I will try to show examples from other pages too.

Even if my interpretation is correct, it will make little difference for the understanding of the text of the VMs -- since the hypothetical Retracer was obviously very careful there, and the errors that he made (like that "infinity" above) would be negligible compared to all the other errors that are likely to exist.  One place where this question may be relevant is the 17 x 4 sequence on page f57v: the failures in the repetition may be due to incorrect retracing.

The retracing may have a greater impact in the interpretation of figures, since certain puzzling details -- like the crown on the Libra page, or the barrels at the top of Sagittarius -- appear to have been wholly created by the Retracer from nothing.

All the best, --jorge

(06-06-2025, 06:05 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So we seem to agree that on those (and several other) words there are both dark strokes and very faint ones.  The dispute is whether both were drawn at the same time, and came out different because of ink flow effects; or the word was written once, was or became faint, and then was carefully, but not always completely, retraced with dark ink.  Is that a good summary of the issue?

Yes, this is a good summary.

(06-06-2025, 06:05 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In this image, the dark strokes create two invalid glyphs, a reversed "i" with serif and an incomplete infinity symbol.  I don't see how those symbols could be interpreted as valid glyphs with some parts missing. 

The infinity symbol is rare, but still appears a few times in the MS. Probably this is just e and o jammed together. There has been a discussion about these fused symbols, I think it was Dobri who started it. Here's the thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and I'm attaching a sample image of fused characters I made for that thread. So, yes, it's rare, but I don't think it's an invalid character in the sense that by producing it the scribe indicated their lack of knowledge of the script.

As for "reversed "i" with serif", I think there are a lot of base minim/curve variations in the MS, so I'm not sure this symbol is particularly strange, it's just not the most common version. If needed I can try hunting for more examples, I don't have them ready.

I haven't found a good pair for "reversed "i" with serif" on f73v, but here are a few samples from this folio (all in faint "original" ink, except the one we were discussing), showing a great deal of variation in how the basic curve shape of various glyphs is executed. 

The closest to the "reversed "i" with serif" is probably e from qopchey at the bottom left. Rotated about 15 degrees clockwise it would produce a good match.

Overall, I don't think weird looking glyph shapes prove much by themselves. For example, if the fourth glyph shape from the top center snippet (something like oh) was in dark ink, it probably would also be a candidate for an invalid symbol?

[attachment=10781]

Sorry for repeating for the third time, but there are more detailed multispectral images for f70v1 and f71r, published by Beinecke. If there are any tentative text retracing attempts on these folios, maybe we can have a better look.

(06-06-2025, 12:09 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-06-2025, 11:58 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.which would happen over time.

This both happens 'immediately after writing' and then possibly very gradually as time passes.
My question is: who would have bothered except the original scribe (or the team), seeing that his/their work was not as clear as hoped?

Someone keen on deciphering it would be a candidate, I've done the same to drawings and script as have others here (just digitally).
Going against this idea would be an example such as (left image) this where the "a" doesn't look any less faded than the remaining outline of "iin", so why was the "a" left? Maybe they looked different when it was done (I don't know). I just think it is clear it was done by someone at some stage so arguments against the idea overall I don't agree with, how far that idea stretches beyond obvious (to me) cases such as this I also don't know, some dark ink amendments/corrections are far more obvious (right image) than others.

I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why someone would do the amendments/corrections to the right image? The top one is bizarre, it is like they thought the "sh" flick needed to be moved maybe? The bottom one is presumably an "i" which would never be found here in normal voynich grammar. I looked at it a while back and noted the 3 similar dots under the text and above the roots, I wondered if it might be an accidental spill but it looks fairly deliberate.

(06-06-2025, 08:27 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This example for me is the strongest argument against proposed retracing of the text in most other places in the MS, because it shows that a retracing would be very obvious. I agree with Stefan here.

I think I agree with everyone to some extent, I don't think claiming there is no "retracing" is correct and also all dark ink is "retracing" is correct. Though the assumption that every case of this would be obvious is also probably not correct. For example this could have been done multiple times by multiple people with multiple writing instruments and ink, or just different scribes (if that theory is correct) touching up each others work after it dried, maybe some were better than others at it.

(06-06-2025, 11:07 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Someone keen on deciphering it would be a candidate,

That is possible of course, but the incentive is not the same. 
Either he could read it (and then there was no real need) or he could not, and then he would not be able to do it.

Since it happens both with the writing and the drawing, the main motivation seems to me to be one of aesthetics or quality.

(07-06-2025, 12:35 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-06-2025, 11:07 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Someone keen on deciphering it would be a candidate,

That is possible of course, but the incentive is not the same. 
Either he could read it (and then there was no real need) or he could not, and then he would not be able to do it.

Since it happens both with the writing and the drawing, the main motivation seems to me to be one of aesthetics or quality.

A third option could be the same as now, I can read it but I want it to be clear for whoever I am showing.
If it is purely "aesthetics or quality" it makes me think of value, monetarily or otherwise, which probably means spiritually.  
That doesn't rule out much I guess, but someone with a cipher they hoped no one could ever crack probably isn't going over text making sure it is clear.

(06-06-2025, 11:07 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why someone would do the amendments/corrections to the right image? The top one is bizarre, it is like they thought the "sh" flick needed to be moved maybe? The bottom one is presumably an "i" which would never be found here in normal voynich grammar.

I think this one is fairly obvious, if we turn the page. It's not clear what did this, but these are probably not wormholes, giving the long deep scratches, one of which is visible even through the vellum. A cat? 

Often the retracing of images doesn't even increase the quality: it's just the same ugly lines as before. Weirdly oriented breasts drawn with a shaky line. Headgear made of a scalloped line, something even toddlers can do.

To me this looks like the same person doing a second pass. If this is the case, the first pass ink was still dark when this happened, so the person did not notice the stark contrast they were creating. 

For some reason, the ink of the second pass would age darker.