Why is Stična codex different?
Stična codex was written by a Czech monk in German style of writing, which by that time was already well established. It uses German letterforms
k,h, z, cz for
č, r, long
s, combination
st, v and
w also as initials, somtimes, but not always, it differentiates with dots
y as
i or
j (with a one or two dotts, uses
y in any position, uses letters
g and
f, often uses double
l (ll), spells
boga as
woga. The combination
zw is used. There is a lot less missing vowels and consonant, which is consistent with already established Czech language, the words are already properly separated, except for short prepositions that are attached to the next word as they are pronounced that way.
The purpose of the writing was different: he wrote the prayer down in a writing style he was familiar to read, so that he could teach ordinary people to recite it. The language is strictly religious.
The author of the Voynich manuscript has written down Slovenian language which existed in oral form only. If I am correct, he worked in a different monastery which was under different religious authority (German, not Italian like Stična Codex). He devised different alphabet with the intention for more permanent use: Latin
z, no long
s,
h and
c were the same as in Latin, did not use
f or
g, used
ch for
č, invented some new letters (EVA
p, f, q (SLO-VA
p), combined
il(j) (EVA
m) to indicate Slavic
ilj sound, used mirror image of
b and
s, redesigned
t and
k, and different letterform for
r. He used
o for the initial
u, v or
w, the letter
y only in initial and final position, in the middle position he used
i and
ii (for
ji, ij). Besides that, the dialect is somewhat different:
i instead of inu in Stična codex, no double letters,
ct for
st, instead of
zv, cv, sv EVA
p, f are used. No double letters, no clear difference of
9-like
y use (sometimes for g, like in Swabian
Genner/
Jenner).
The subject matter and a dialect make big difference. Voynich Manuscript dialect is closer to Croatian than German which is even reflected in the use of
y (i) for the word and (German und, Slovenian INU/INO).
Comparing Stična Codex to VM requires to study each word: how it was formed in Old Church Slavonic (common Slavic language), how it evolved in different Slavic languages and dilects, what kind of spelling convention was used, how it was pronounced.
Croatian linguist Crnković pointed out two major things that relate to the Voynich Manuscripts: word blocks (combining several short unstressed words into one), dropped short and semi-vowels. Besides that, I noticed in his study of the Rules of St. Benedict that the space was often at the wrong place – particularly after
r. That text is much more comparable to Voynich writing that Stična codex.
As for the imaginary words: Slovenian word structure is very simple: from one letter words
s, k, v, z, h, o to many two letter words:
to, tu, ti, ta, te, to tod, tok, tol, tom, tod, tud, tuj, tur, tem, ter, tema, temen. These are not nonsense words, but meaningful Slovenian words.
Since most Slovenian roots were comprised of one syllable, new words were formed by adding or changing a letter, or changing the stress. So the chances are that if you take the syllabic tables used in early Slovenian Grammar books (like syllabic tables in the Augsburg manuscript, debated on Ninja), you can find many Slovenian words there. This works for longer syllables, too: chas or zhas – time, chast or zhast – honour, chest or zhest – frequent, chustvo or zuhustvo – feeling. To create more 'nonsense' words, you add to these words various suffixes and you get different one or two syllable words: chas- chasa, chasu, chasom, chasi, pochasi, učasi...
It is impossible to explain the complexity of the medieval Slovenian language. You might find some more information on the enclosed file.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.