(04-09-2026, 03:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
PS. The "SPS = SBJ" claim is quite different from most other "plain natural language" theories. These typically propose some obscure language and spelling system with arbitrary mangling, abbreviation, dialectal variation etc., and then are free to make up some bizarre recipes or stories. Like "Boil [the] Sacred Sword under [the] blood of five stones [and] add saltpeter fast [while] grinding [the] strong eagle [as it] flies through [the] cosmic hill".
The "SPS = SBJ" claim, in contrast, does not specify the language, but specifies the complete plaintext -- even that of the eight missing pages. Not just
some classic Chinese medical book, but that specific book. Essentially whole, mostly word for word. It does not have the freedom to choose between boiling swords or grinding eagles at each step.
The only freedom it has is the order of the SBJ recipes. That was never fixed, and medical encyclopedias that quoted the whole SBJ would rearrange the recipes to suit their own ordering scheme. The Dictator must have read them in the order that they appear in his book. If the dictation happened in China, the book probably was the Zenghe Bencao but if it happened in some other country it may have been a local encyclopedia. Anyway, the Author may have scrambled the leaves of his draft, or may have reordered the recipes according to his logic, before giving the final draft to the Scribe. And then the bifolios may have been scrambled and flipped before being bound. Still, I believe that vestiges of the Zhenghe Bencao order may have survived, and I think I saw hints of that. More on this later.
On the other hand, the close match between the histograms of SBJ recipe lengths and SPS paragraph lengths implies that each Chinese character became about 5 EVA letters (excluding word spaces). That is a first constraint on the matching of recipes to paragraphs: I only consider candidates that are close to the size predicted by that ratio. For example, for a middling-sized recipe with 34 original Chinese characters ("heavenly essence herb"), only 21 of the 243 single-star parags pass this first criterion.
For the longest recipe ("red rooster"), in particular, that criterion already leaves only one possible match, namely the longest single-star paragraph (f105v.32) -- because both are much longer than all the other competitors. Thus the SPS=SBJ claim necessarily includes the claim that the plaintext of parag f105v.32 is the "red rooster" SBJ recipe.
This specific match is determined even before looking at the positions of the 主/daiin and other cribs. Fortunately these do match quite well, as shown before (and recapped below).
As for how much "butchering" is allowed: the SPS=SBJ claim indeed
- allows/requires deletion of certain parts of the Chinese text, and
- allows some variation on the Voynichese side of the cribs.
As for the first kind of "butchering", specifically, there are three fields at the beginning and end of the recipes (the classification in Chinese medical theory, alternative names, and the general provenance) that are assumed to have been omitted by the Author on
all recipes. These fields are identified by specific Chinese keywords (味, 一名, and 生, respectively), and there is no uncertainty about their extent. In addition, in some recipes there may be some "comment" fields that are not names of diseases or benefits. In the "red rooster" recipe:
- the "rooster head" sub-recipe has a comment 东门上者尤良 = "those [rooster heads] that were hung on the East gate are particularly potent [at killing ghosts] ".
- there is a note 女人 = "woman" before three conditions specific for women
- after the note that rooster eggs (!) can be alchemically turned into amber, there is a comment 神物 = "[which is] a divine substance"
- the very last sub-entry 鸡白蠹能肥脂 = "chicken white grubs fatten fat", besides lacking a 主 keyword, was already incomprehensible by ~1300, and may be about grubs that grow in chicken manure -- not a part of the "red rooster".
Comment (1) is assumed to have been omitted by the Author. A priori, the other three comments may or may not have been omitted; so that is a bit of "butchering freedom" that the claim has on the Chinese side. Trying all combinations indicates that the "white grubs" part (4) was definitely omitted, and the other two comments (2,3) were probably (but not surely) omitted too.
On the Voynichese side, the "butchering freedom" is in the translations of the eight 主 keywords and their positions on the text. Four of the 主 appear as
daiin, and the other four can be matched to
kaiin,
dain,
laiin, and
kaiin. As I have argued before, these variations from
daiin are all plausible errors by the Author or the Scribe (if they are not equivalent spellings of the same sound). As for their positions, the counts of EVA letters between consecutive matched cribs are 8, 100, 15, 22, 34, 20, 43, 23, and 52; which differ from the expected counts by -6, -3, 0, +7, 0, 0, +3, -1, and +2 EVA letters. Looking at the Chinese side, the gaps are 3, 21, 3, 3, 7, 4, 8, 5, and 10 hanzi, and EVA count errors above are equivalent to -1.2, -0.6, 0, +1.4, 0, 0, +0.6, -0.2, and +0.4 hanzi. So the "butchering freedom" here is a standard deviation of ~4 EVA letters (equivalent to 0.8 hanzi) from the expected spacings of the 主 cribs.
Is that to much "butchering freedom"? Sorry, but I don't think so...
All the best, --stolfi