The Voynich Ninja

Since this thread is quite active and it may create the impression that something of interest happens, I think I'll just summarize my conclusions and move on. First of all, thanks to Doireannjane for answering the questions and making a real effort explaining the method. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the method has any validity at all. It produces incoherent sentences when interpreting test pieces of the Voynich Manuscript into English (via Irish) and at the same time fails to reproduce the proper structure of the Voynich Manuscript text when attempting to convert Irish to the Voynich glyphs.

Examples:

qokal otedy qokedy qokedy dal qokedy qokedy from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. had four attempted interpretations, neither of which looks coherent:
Are under tube tubes below making minor tube tubes (above, implied)?
Are minor under tube tubes running off(eloping) from tube tubes?
Is from under (re)mak(ing) minor tube tubes(tubules) from two minor tube tubes(tubules)?
From under make minor tube tubes from minor tube tubes?

qokeey dar Shedy qokedy qokeedy qokedy chedy okain chey qokedy dar ol ar dy from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was interpreted as
Under thatch (of) the basin homespun cloth under tube little thing is trace under cylinder basin from olive
(with "basin" in the sense of "widening of waterway for boats to maneuvre and load/unload")
which to me looks like a random sequence of words with no meaning at all.

When attempting to write the following Irish phrases "Tá Coirt saileach(or Tá saileach)ó bhruach abhann go maith don chroí ae. tóg cuachán deich gealaí." in the Voynich Manuscript glyphs the following line was produced:

po sam ton (dy) Shoas okolyd(al) diy scha l schee par soarooy dees rilol

Which has a lot of statistically rare combinations of glyphs like "ton", "diy", "schee", "soarooy", "rilol". While rare sequences do appear in the Manuscript, having so many of them in a single sentence suggests that the method doesn't reproduce known structural properties of the text.

I also don't find the plant identifications made using this method convincing, unless they can be independently verified by somebody with relevant expertise both in botany and medieval herbal manuscript tradition.

(15-11-2025, 08:33 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since this thread is quite active and it may create the impression that something of interest happens, I think I'll just summarize my conclusions and move on. First of all, thanks to Doireannjane for answering the questions and making a real effort explaining the method. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the method has any validity at all. It produces incoherent sentences when interpreting test pieces of the Voynich Manuscript into English (via Irish) and at the same time fails to reproduce the proper structure of the Voynich Manuscript text when attempting to convert Irish to the Voynich glyphs.

Examples:

qokal otedy qokedy qokedy dal qokedy qokedy from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. had four attempted interpretations, neither of which looks coherent:
Are under tube tubes below making minor tube tubes (above, implied)?
Are minor under tube tubes running off(eloping) from tube tubes?
Is from under (re)mak(ing) minor tube tubes(tubules) from two minor tube tubes(tubules)?
From under make minor tube tubes from minor tube tubes?

qokeey dar Shedy qokedy qokeedy qokedy chedy okain chey qokedy dar ol ar dy from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was interpreted as
Under thatch (of) the basin homespun cloth under tube little thing is trace under cylinder basin from olive
(with "basin" in the sense of "widening of waterway for boats to maneuvre and load/unload")
which to me looks like a random sequence of words with no meaning at all.

When attempting to write the following Irish phrases "Tá Coirt saileach(or Tá saileach)ó bhruach abhann go maith don chroí ae. tóg cuachán deich gealaí." in the Voynich Manuscript glyphs the following line was produced:

po sam ton (dy) Shoas okolyd(al) diy scha l schee par soarooy dees rilol

Which has a lot of statistically rare combinations of glyphs like "ton", "diy", "schee", "soarooy", "rilol". While rare sequences do appear in the Manuscript, having so many of them in a single sentence suggests that the method doesn't reproduce known structural properties of the text.

I also don't find the plant identifications made using this method convincing, unless they can be independently verified by somebody with relevant expertise both in botany and medieval herbal manuscript tradition.

Corrections:
There is a question mark there because it is a lyrical question (yes there are possibilities to glean from it).

qokal otedy qokedy qokedy dal qokedy qokedy ?

Secondly:
This word is UNDER LEA OR UNTILLED LEA, not thatch 
qokeey

Thirdly: 
The sentence I was asked to write in Voynich script would not exist in the script like that. Your frequesncy statistics are not even relevant. 

Lastly: 
Temporality check here, if all computer/phone/quick exchange communications was erased from the planet, and a person was to find a piece of paper 100s of years into the future that read: "hai bb wyd rn" what would they make of it? Or if they saw a piece of paper with my post a few pages back that said "me rn tbh" How would they be translated? 

None of this seems important to me. The sentences translated from the Manuscript look just as incoherent with these changes.

(15-11-2025, 09:49 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The sentence I was asked to write in Voynich script would not exist in the script like that. Your frequesncy statistics are not even relevant. 

The sentence you were asked to write in Voynich script was to test whether your method reproduces the characteristic patterns present in the manuscript (curve-line matching, absence of certain patterns, etc). You may think these features are not important, but to me (and I suppose to many other Voynich enthusiasts) these are an essential part of the script and any solution that is not able to reproduce them is doing something wrong.

(15-11-2025, 09:49 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Temporality check here, if all computer/phone/quick exchange communications was erased from the planet, and a person was to find a piece of paper 100s of years into the future that read: "hai bb wyd rn" what would they make of it? Or if they saw a piece of paper with my post a few pages back that said "me rn tbh" How would they be translated? 

If a person was to find 240 pages of modern communication in English, they probably would be able to figure it out. No one ever taught me explicitly what "rn" and "tbh" mean, but somehow I was able to learn this just by reading people on the internet.

(15-11-2025, 10:29 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.None of this seems important to me. The sentences translated from the Manuscript look just as incoherent with these changes.

(15-11-2025, 09:49 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The sentence I was asked to write in Voynich script would not exist in the script like that. Your frequesncy statistics are not even relevant. 

The sentence you were asked to write in Voynich script was to test whether your method reproduces the characteristic patterns present in the manuscript (curve-line matching, absence of certain patterns, etc). You may think these features are not important, but to me (and I suppose to many other Voynich enthusiasts) these are an essential part of the script and any solution that is not able to reproduce them is doing something wrong.

(15-11-2025, 09:49 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Temporality check here, if all computer/phone/quick exchange communications was erased from the planet, and a person was to find a piece of paper 100s of years into the future that read: "hai bb wyd rn" what would they make of it? Or if they saw a piece of paper with my post a few pages back that said "me rn tbh" How would they be translated? 

If a person was to find 240 pages of modern communication in English, they probably would be able to figure it out. No one ever taught me explicitly what "rn" and "tbh" mean, but somehow I was able to learn this just by reading people on the internet.

You misunderstood my question. I'm saying if there was no modern communication at all. 

Better example: Imagine there is a dialect and language that is entirely spoken, has it's own rules and phonetic spelling, one single document of it written exists and it sits amongst hundreds of academic papers in the same root language. (And that is all that exists, no other context) Would everything in that one single document be clear? Would it be hundreds of years later? Would it be hundreds of years later after a halt in natural language evolution? How do pauses or halts in language development skew a translator's or linguist's perspective?

(15-11-2025, 10:44 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You misunderstood my question. I'm saying if there was no modern communication at all. 

Then your question about "a piece of paper" is irrelevant. Voynich Manuscript is not "a piece of paper", it's a 240 pages long document. If a 240 pages long document of modern communication was discovered, I'm sure most abbreviations would be easy to identify unambiguously from the context.

(15-11-2025, 10:44 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Better example: Imagine there is a dialect and language that is entirely spoken, has it's own rules and phonetic spelling, one single document of it written exists and it sits amongst hundreds of academic papers in the same root language. (And that is all that exists, no other context) Would everything in that one single document be clear? Would it be hundreds of years later? Would it be hundreds of years later after a halt in natural language evolution? How do pauses or halts in language development skew a translator's or linguist's perspective?

"Almiȝti god / yaf ten hestes / ine þe laȝe of iewes / þet Moyses onderuing / ine þe helle of Synay / ine tuo tables of ston / þet were i-write / mid godes vingre . and him-zelf / efter his beringe / ine his spelle / het hise healde / and loki / to ech man / þet wile by y-borȝe . and huo þet agelt / ine enie of þe ilke hestes: him ssel þerof uor-þenche / and him ssriue / and bidde god merci / yef he wyle by yborȝe."

This is a custom phonetic spelling document in Kentish dialect of the XIV century, called Ayenbite of Inwyt, quite well known I guess because of its being mentioned in the first chapter of Ulysses. Now, I'd say my English is roughly C1 level, far from native. Not only I can easily recognize what this text is about I can recognize a large percentage of words, they form quite a few meaningful sentences, there are very clearly identifiable grammar words, personal names, etc. If your interpretation produced anything like this in Irish, I have no doubts modern Irish speakers, especially versed in Medieval Irish, would be able to identify and comprehend a large portion of the text just as easily. As far as I understand from this thread, nothing like this happened. But you claim that you can see the truth and everybody else just doesn't get it. How likely is that?

(15-11-2025, 11:29 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-11-2025, 10:44 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You misunderstood my question. I'm saying if there was no modern communication at all. 

Then your question about "a piece of paper" is irrelevant. Voynich Manuscript is not "a piece of paper", it's a 240 pages long document. If a 240 pages long document of modern communication was discovered, I'm sure most abbreviations would be easy to identify unambiguously from the context.

(15-11-2025, 10:44 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Better example: Imagine there is a dialect and language that is entirely spoken, has it's own rules and phonetic spelling, one single document of it written exists and it sits amongst hundreds of academic papers in the same root language. (And that is all that exists, no other context) Would everything in that one single document be clear? Would it be hundreds of years later? Would it be hundreds of years later after a halt in natural language evolution? How do pauses or halts in language development skew a translator's or linguist's perspective?

"Almiȝti god / yaf ten hestes / ine þe laȝe of iewes / þet Moyses onderuing / ine þe helle of Synay / ine tuo tables of ston / þet were i-write / mid godes vingre . and him-zelf / efter his beringe / ine his spelle / het hise healde / and loki / to ech man / þet wile by y-borȝe . and huo þet agelt / ine enie of þe ilke hestes: him ssel þerof uor-þenche / and him ssriue / and bidde god merci / yef he wyle by yborȝe."

This is a custom phonetic spelling document in Kentish dialect of the XIV century, called Ayenbite of Inwyt, quite well known I guess because of its being mentioned in the first chapter of Ulysses. Now, I'd say my English is roughly C1 level, far from native. Not only I can easily recognize what this text is about I can recognize a large percentage of words, they form quite a few meaningful sentences, there are very clearly identifiable grammar words, personal names, etc. If your interpretation produced anything like this in Irish, I have no doubts modern Irish speakers, especially versed in Medieval Irish, would be able to identify and comprehend a large portion of the text just as easily. As far as I understand from this thread, nothing like this happened. But you claim that you can see the truth and everybody else just doesn't get it. How likely is that?

How likely is it that I single handedly, without the help of any kind of AI, no advisor, no university, no funding, no help, not even a college degree, just a few years of studying translation in college and a year working on this that I found the taxonomy of most of the plants and roots by name? This seems particularly improbable from an academic's lens, I imagine. But that's the truth, everything is documented. I don't know what to tell you. The sentences aren't perfectly aligned with english and punctuation has to be inferred, but my lexicon is on point. It's statistically improbable that it isn't.

Please refer to the images I've posted here, the plants, the labels, everything. That is not even 10% of what I have.

"Science is about reproducibility, I can have the most brilliant, crazy, fun, idea ever and if I perform the experiment and no one else can duplicate that experiment? It belongs in the trash heap. It's me in my own world thinking I have landed on objective truth when in fact I haven't, that's how science works! The reproducibility of results."

Because you have judged your work to be good only places you on "the list" with all the others who did the same. 
The only thing that matters really is addressed in the above quote.

(15-11-2025, 11:47 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."Science is about reproducibility, I can have the most brilliant, crazy, fun, idea ever and if I perform and experiment and no one else can duplicate that experiment? It belongs in the trash heap. It's me in my own world thinking I have landed on objective truth when in fact I haven't, that's how science works! The reproducibility of results."

Because you have judged your work to be good only places you on "the list" with all the others who did the same. 
The only thing that matters really is addressed in the above quote.

Hey, I remember that from NDT.

(15-11-2025, 11:39 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's statistically improbable that it isn't.

How have you determined this?

No one has tried to reproduce what I've done on the thread. The initial steps maybe, but let me remind you, this took me months (to figure out just the basics).