So, I was looking at how the manuscript was structured and noticed something interesting.. Its obvious by now that the penmanship changes every so often and no one knows why, well I think I might've just cracked how its structured and why this is..
The VMS is written in chunks, and each chunk is like a .json file and how they are structured.. I think that its
a language built on INFORMATION rather than communication.. like a coding language would be.. and if you take into account how the chunks are visually you can start to see some patterns.. I included some semi-low-res images of a part on a page and you can start to see what I mean..
The Red areas are like the Header saying what its about or the object or thing (the Variable basically) of what its about, then the Black areas is what Type it is like a category for text on what type of text it is (like if its a function or how something works or instructions to something, etc.), then the Green areas are Additional Data like the rest of the 'working code' in a script to add more info to what is already there, and the order and size matter as well..
[
attachment=11529] [
attachment=11530]
You’re closer than you might realize with the JSON analogy. The Voynich text really does behave like nested data blocks — but instead of computer syntax, it’s running on a morphological grammar.
Each “chunk” you’re seeing corresponds to a structured sequence — prefix → root → stem → postfix — that repeats predictably across sections. Think of it like JSON where:
- the prefix is the key name or domain header (defines what the data is about — e.g. herbal, astronomical, recipe),
- the root is the core “object” or concept,
- and the stems/postfixes are modifiers — like nested attributes or values.
So you’re absolutely right that the manuscript encodes
information, not just prose — but it’s doing it linguistically, not programmatically. The “chunks” you noticed line up almost perfectly with the grammatical boundaries I found computationally.
In other words, your intuition about “structured information blocks” is dead-on — the only correction is that it’s not a symbolic data language; it’s an information-dense natural grammar that happens to look like one.
[
attachment=11972]
(02-11-2025, 05:56 AM)Fengist Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You’re closer than you might realize with the JSON analogy. The Voynich text really does behave like nested data blocks — but instead of computer syntax, it’s running on a morphological grammar.
Each “chunk” you’re seeing corresponds to a structured sequence — prefix → root → stem → postfix — that repeats predictably across sections. Think of it like JSON where:
- the prefix is the key name or domain header (defines what the data is about — e.g. herbal, astronomical, recipe),
- the root is the core “object” or concept,
- and the stems/postfixes are modifiers — like nested attributes or values.
So you’re absolutely right that the manuscript encodes information, not just prose — but it’s doing it linguistically, not programmatically. The “chunks” you noticed line up almost perfectly with the grammatical boundaries I found computationally.
In other words, your intuition about “structured information blocks” is dead-on — the only correction is that it’s not a symbolic data language; it’s an information-dense natural grammar that happens to look like one.
I thought AI slop wasn't allowed outside of its dedicated subforum. Is it? I'm genuinely unsure. This definitely reeks of artificial intelligence.
Thanks, looks like one of the robots got through
