The Voynich Ninja

I know this is a frequent issue that transliterators come across and it is also an issue for any sort of solution to the script itself. These three EVA-sh ligatures (see below) on f4r are all in a row but all have a different form and shape. How can one square these differences? This page was written by scribe 1 which tends to have the best handwritting out of the scribes as well which makes it even more confusing. 

They are obviously other examples like this which I know have lead some to create much larger alphabets like the GC transliteration, but at what point should we give the scribe the benefit of the doubt on their less than perfect handwritting and when should we treat any deviation as meaningful? 

The answer is likely 'there is no answer' but I wonder to what degree the communities efforts is split on small variations like these and how much it obfuscates the text itself.

(30-10-2025, 08:58 AM)Skoove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I know this is a frequent issue that transliterators come across and it is also an issue for any sort of solution to the script itself. These three EVA-sh ligatures (see below) on f4r are all in a row but all have a different form and shape. How can one square these differences? This page was written by scribe 1 which tends to have the best handwritting out of the scribes as well which makes it even more confusing. 

If you consider the size of the text, the variations are not that big. When I try writing really small letters, even with a good writing tool, the shapes vary a lot, because there is a limit to how precise you can be with the direction and the position. I can keep it neat for a few words, but I certainly won't be able to keep precise shapes for pages, and the moment you relax your control it gets comparable to the Voynich MS variation for me. 

Here's a Voynich MS page with a standard USB plug roughly to scale, from the known dimensions of the MS itself.

[attachment=11851]

Personally, I think they probably matter. To me your first example looks like the modification to make "r" is added to the bench, the second one has the modification to make "l" added to the bench. But as you allude to, you will probably find people on both sides with arguments both ways, the truth is probably that we don't know.

(30-10-2025, 08:58 AM)Skoove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These three EVA-sh ligatures (see below) on f4r are all in a row but all have a different form and shape. How can one square these differences.

My answer is that some of the differences are partly just normal handwriting variations (as others pointed out, the letters are very small: the o-height in that text is less 1.5 mm) and partly the result of most of the text having been restored by someone who was very careful but did not even know the alphabet.

Check the lower part of the plume on the second Sh of that line, or the lower part of the stem of the q on the line above.  I believe that the all original writing on that page had already faded to that state, or worse, centuries ago.  Practically all of the text we see now is restoration.  The bits of original text that were not retraced, like those two examples, are parts that had faded less.

The original plumes were drawn with a quick swish of the pen from the bottom up and turning counterclockwise.   But the top part of most plumes was retraced slowly in the wrong direction (clockwise), giving them a crooked and forced look, often with a distinct break where they join the original trace.  On a signature, that sort of thing would be obvious evidence of amateur forgery.

On line 2, next to the plant, after the word Chaiin there is an invalid glyph that resembles the right stroke of an o.  My guess is that either there was an o there, whose left stroke faded to complete invisibility; or there was nothing there, and the Retracer just hallucinated that half-o.  Either way, I take that as evidence that the Retracer did not know the Voynichese alphabet.

All the best, --stolfi

(30-10-2025, 08:58 AM)Skoove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but at what point should we give the scribe the benefit of the doubt on their less than perfect handwritting and when should we treat any deviation as meaningful? 

Whenever "we" (the few people who wrote transliterations) feel that some deviation from the basic shapes is systematic and not accidental, and therefore possibly meaningful.

(30-10-2025, 08:58 AM)Skoove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The answer is likely 'there is no answer' but I wonder to what degree the communities efforts is split on small variations like these and how much it obfuscates the text itself.

Of course it makes a difference, and here you can see it very clearly. As we know, these small letters stand for omitted letters.

The sign which looks like a mirrored c, stands for “us, os, is, s” so the letters can be inserted here. But also a 9 with a straight tail pointing downwards. But mostly at the end of a word.

The y stands here for "er", which will give the word a completely different meaning. 

The hat, i.e. the last ligature, also exists, but I can't find it right now (there are 14,000 ligatures in the dictionary) and it has yet another meaning, but it could also be a faded 9.

And to make matters worse, the "u" for “ur” could also be written with a tail pointing downwards, which looks similar to a 9, but has a different meaning.

So it is important. Similarly, the two “c”s in “ch” can also represent different letters.

And to make it even crazier, the letter can simply be the extension of an S, as is done in the "sh" transcription. And the mirroed S as a con = conc...

Normally, this is clear from the context... big laugh here...

I won't even mention the line between the c's...   sh =  conmc (joke)????

[attachment=11863]

[attachment=11862]
Übersetzt: A very similar sign to "us" is sometimes found above certain consonants with the meaning “er,” but not at the end of the word, as in

I ve found it:

[attachment=11865]

= cir..... okaaay 


And here are the different versions in words—I actually want to publish everything I've found in a new thread about ligatures and brevigraphs. But that's still to come Or does such a thread already exist?

[attachment=11866]