The Voynich Ninja

(15-11-2025, 06:00 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Doireann, this last post is a great example of what others (and myself) have found problematic about your methods. You wrote "I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word." You are making a choice about how to interpret the word based on what you think it should mean. That is by definition "cherry-picking". it is not reproduceable by anyone other than yourself, making it impossible for anyone else to repeat your work and come to the same conclusions. No one else would look at that sentence and decide to "break up the word." Instead of posting examples of sentences you've interpreted, you need to go back to first principles and explain, simply and concisely, your association of sounds to symbols and your justification for those associations, in ways other than trial and error or selective confirmation bias. 

Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean. 

Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again. 

Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.

Hi Lisa, I understand what is being asked of me. I'll push back again though about cherry picking. Breaking up the word happens not because I am cherry picking or seeking out to cherry pick. The format of the sentence, the sound of the sentence and my knowledge of how the syntax of the sentences exist within this text, where adjectives fall, THAT tells me to break up the word. When you know that some suffixes are diminutive for example, or some prefixes can be adjectives or positional, you have to break up the word when those come up or if a word is very long. 

In terms of language A and B. Dhin is common in places talking about the filtering of water and plants, tiny. Small things - dhin. (or just "-in", verb suffix meaning in process of). These of course would not be at all common in the stars. Follows my logic.

I'd love to have a list of exactly what is needed and I can follow through. I have been working between 45-60 hours a week since April so I haven't been privileged in the amount of time each day I can dedicate to this. My focus has been on research and the translation. Not linguistic proof side.

 I have someone demonstrating repeatability this week.

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN 
I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is: 
fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.

Thank you for clarifying that I need not concern myself with the adjectival form, though I share Davis's concerns about choosing between the two. But even then, there were several moving parts to this question. That still leaves the question of how you interpret that in a long string of nouns, my question 4 under syntax. Please answer it.

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correct 
abhouil - bi

Can you explain how you go from one to the other? I could not find abhouil in Irish conjugation tables or the dictionary. (This is question 3 under the word choices.)

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix: 

afada

So it is ológá, not ológ?

I will also just say, I do not think there are two distinct languages. As I said in my Tiktok, the astrological section most likely contains latin adjacent terms, but my understanding is that the text that can all be read THROUGH modern Irish.

(15-11-2025, 06:13 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="LisaFaginDavis" pid='73644' dateline='1763226028']
Doireann, this last post is a great example of what others (and myself) have found problematic about your methods. You wrote "I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word." You are making a choice about how to interpret the word based on what you think it should mean. That is by definition "cherry-picking". it is not reproduceable by anyone other than yourself, making it impossible for anyone else to repeat your work and come to the same conclusions. No one else would look at that sentence and decide to "break up the word." Instead of posting examples of sentences you've interpreted, you need to go back to first principles and explain, simply and concisely, your association of sounds to symbols and your justification for those associations, in ways other than trial and error or selective confirmation bias. 

Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean. 

Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again. 

Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.

Hi Lisa, I understand what is being asked of me. I'll push back again though about cherry picking. Breaking up the word happens not because I am cherry picking or seeking out to cherry pick. The format of the sentence, the sound of the sentence and my knowledge of how the syntax of the sentences exist within this text, where adjectives fall, THAT tells me to break up the word. When you know that some suffixes are diminutive for example, or some prefixes can be adjectives or positional, you have to break up the word when those come up or if a word is very long. 

In terms of language A and B. Dhin is common in places talking about the filtering of water and plants, tiny. Small things (as suffix only) -dhin. (or just "-in", verb suffix meaning in process of). These of course would not be at all common in the stars. Follows my logic.

On it's own, not as a suffix, dhin is also relational (not applying to stars):

de1, prep. (Pron. forms: díom, díot, de m, di f, dínn, díbh, díobh) (Lenites; becomes d’ before vowel or fh followed by vowel; combines (i) with article an to form den. S.a. AN1, (ii) with poss. adjectives a, ár, to form dá, dár. S.a. DÁ2,3,4, dar3, dár1,2) From, off; of. 1. (a) (Denoting removal, separation, cessation, etc.) Rud a bhaint de dhuine, to take sth. from s.o. Tóg den bhord é, take it off the table. Bhris mé den chrann é, I broke it off the tree. Tá an ceann den teach acu, they have taken the roof off the house. Ghlan sí an smál de, she cleaned the stain from it. Éirí, titim, de rud, to rise, fall, from sth. Scoir siad den obair, they left off work. Stad sé den ól, he stopped drinking. Léim sé (anuas) den charraig, he jumped (down) from the rock. S.a. BAIN DE, CAITH DE, CUIR DE, TÓG DE. (b) (Denoting attachment, continuation) Greamú de rud, to become attached to sth. Leanúint de rud, to keep at, continue, sth. Cheangail sé den chuaille é, he tied it to the pole. Chroch mé de mo ghualainn é, I suspended it from my shoulder. © (Denoting relative position) Laistiar den teach, at the back of the house. Taobh abhus den abhainn, on the near side of the river. Faoi mhíle den chathair, within a mile of the city. 2. (a) (Origin, derivation) Duine den seanreacht, one of the old regime. Bean de Ghearaltach, a Fitzgerald lady. Tháinig siad de dhream uaibhreach, they came of a haughty race. Tá earraí de dhéantús na hÉireann le fáil ann, Irish-manufactured goods may be obtained there. (b) (Material, substance, contents) Íorna

You're not going to convince anyone (and neither is any potential solver) until you (and they) do the reading and explain how your (their) work fits into the work that has already been done. Read Ray Clemens's book. Read Claire Bowern's linguistic work. Read everything on Rene's website, even the pages that don't seem directly related to what you are doing. Any solution, in order to be convincing, absolutely must be alligned with what we already know about the manuscript. 

How does your solution allign with the A/B differences? If you don't know what that means, then you really need to take a break and do some background reading - it is a fundamental characteristic of the manuscript.
How does it allign with the known history of the manuscript? If you don't know the history, step away and do the reading.
How does it allign with the liguistic analytics? Again, if you don't what those analyses are, step away and do the reading.
These are just a few of the fundamental questions that any plausible solution needs to address.

Anyone working on the manuscript needs to do this. 

No one does this work fulltime. Many of us, including myself, have other jobs. Take your time, step away if you need to and take time to do the background reading at your own pace, then think about - in an intellectually honest way - how what you've learned impacts your ideas, and then either change your ideas if necessary or be prepared to explain how they allign with what we already know.

Anyone working on the manuscript needs to do this.

(15-11-2025, 05:39 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2. Both have been spelled and/or pronounced the same historically: 

doic1, f. (gs. ~e). 1. Difficulty, impediment. ~ a chur i rud, to impede sth. ~ i gcaint, i bpósadh, an impediment in speech, to marriage. 2. Hesitation, reluctance. Gan ~, unhesitatingly. (Var: ~e f)

duga, m. (gs. ~, pl. ~í). 1. Dock (for ships). ~ grábhála, snámha, tirim, graving, floating, dry, dock. ~í, docks, dockyard. 2. (Of canal) Basin. (Var: dug m; pl. ~nna)

This is explanation looks very dubious to me. In modern Irish the pronounciation doic is /dɪc/ while duga is /dʊɡa/; I know there has been some contention here about IPA, but all that matters is that /dɪc/ and /dʊɡa/ are not the same. As a rule, homophones do not split once merged, and Irish preserves historical spellings that showed differences in pronunciation at the earlier stages of the language, so I am going to be a stickler and ask you to furnish some evidence that they were historically the same phonetically.

(15-11-2025, 05:39 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.5 and 6 I'm not sure, I have to revisit my language arts notebook from 5th grade. lol

I would be much obliged if you did, though explaining the long strings of nouns might well clear this up implicitly.

If it helps, the following sentences should illustrate my question:

• I am drunk.
  
• I am a drunk.
  

In both the subject is "I". The predicate is everything that remains in each. So to answer question 5 I just need to know what nouns go with bi. For question 6, my understanding is that the first sentence would use is but the second would use bi; this understanding is heavily influenced by my understanding of a similar distinction in Spanish, so I would accept I am off base here. But I am given to understand that bi indicates there is something temporary rather than essential about the equivalence, and that seems odd for the nouns around it.

(15-11-2025, 06:25 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN 
I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is: 
fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.

Thank you for clarifying that I need not concern myself with the adjectival form, though I share Davis's concerns about choosing between the two. But even then, there were several moving parts to this question. That still leaves the question of how you interpret that in a long string of nouns, my question 4 under syntax. Please answer it.

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correct 
abhouil - bi

Can you explain how you go from one to the other? I could not find abhouil in Irish conjugation tables or the dictionary. (This is question 3 under the word choices.)

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix: 

afada

So it is ológá, not ológ?

No it is ológ dhin (or dínn) 

(15-11-2025, 06:40 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-11-2025, 06:25 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN 
I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is: 
fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.

Thank you for clarifying that I need not concern myself with the adjectival form, though I share Davis's concerns about choosing between the two. But even then, there were several moving parts to this question. That still leaves the question of how you interpret that in a long string of nouns, my question 4 under syntax. Please answer it.

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correct 
abhouil - bi

Can you explain how you go from one to the other? I could not find abhouil in Irish conjugation tables or the dictionary. (This is question 3 under the word choices.)

(15-11-2025, 05:27 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix: 

afada

So it is ológá, not ológ?

No it is ológ dhin (or dínn) 

This is how I got to bi -> breaking away the a- to get bfhouil, it also sounds like the word for "Homewards" which I have it as that elsewhere. 
abhaile, adv. Home, homewards.

(15-11-2025, 06:35 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You're not going to convince anyone (and neither is any potential solver) until you (and they) do the reading and explain how your (their) work fits into the work that has already been done. Read Ray Clemens's book. Read Claire Bowern's linguistic work. Read everything on Rene's website, even the pages that don't seem directly related to what you are doing. Any solution, in order to be convincing, absolutely must be alligned with what we already know about the manuscript. 

How does your solution allign with the A/B differences? If you don't know what that means, then you really need to take a break and do some background reading - it is a fundamental characteristic of the manuscript.
How does it allign with the known history of the manuscript? If you don't know the history, step away and do the reading.
How does it allign with the liguistic analytics? Again, if you don't what those analyses are, step away and do the reading.
These are just a few of the fundamental questions that any plausible solution needs to address.

Anyone working on the manuscript needs to do this. 

No one does this work fulltime. Many of us, including myself, have other jobs. Take your time, step away if you need to and take time to do the background reading at your own pace, then think about - in an intellectually honest way - how what you've learned impacts your ideas, and then either change your ideas if necessary or be prepared to explain how they allign with what we already know.

Anyone working on the manuscript needs to do this.

Respectfully, the assumption here is that those things haven't been done on my end. A lot of what you list I've already done or made great progress on. Probably not to the same degree as some of those here, sure. But this thread is almost entirely based on linguistics and repeatability. I'll read your recommendations, thank you. But I'm trying to demonstrate repeatability on this thread. This element of me proving myself to you all, isn't really what this is about. My research isn't just an overnight/half baked thought. I have thousands of lines of work that is not public.