14-01-2026, 06:32 PM
Regarding the text of the Voynich manuscript, I am at this point inclined to believe the following as a tentative point of view, of course subject to further evaluation as new reliable information is learned by scholars about the Voynich manuscript.
Although it may appear still as incompletely interpreted, I find the marginalia on the last page of the manuscript, thanks to the efforts of many including especially Koen G. (even though he’d likely disagree humbly), as being a sort of a Rosetta stone, a tip of an iceberg, revealing that at some point someone treated the manuscript as being, first, readable (so, not a gibberish), second comprised of Latin and some German material. Sometime getting into details leads us to lose sight of an elephant in the room, or at least a reliable part of it.
That marginalia sounds like a reliable steppingstone, for me. Not sufficient, but given both Voynichese, some Latin, and some German, in seemingly meaning ways (for its scriber), were shared in the marginalia, along with some unknown still other words, I think it provides a rather fitting window to the nature of the language being used in the manuscript.
Even Koen G.’s interview with Dr. Katherine Hindley (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) provides some clues as to the extent folks could have gone at that time in “privatizing” their healing or medicinal texts for public protection or privacy reasons, or even for the sake of assurance by an expert supplying the text to be sure he is paid before supplying the key for deciphering a text of medicinal or astrological prescriptions he was offering (see the interview, around the time 36:40, for interesting points shared by Dr. Hindley).
My reading of the “word” beside the Pleiades image as Botrus is also reliable enough for me, as explained before, not only in terms of its letters (except for that ‘a’ which for me is itself a signifier of possible ciphering effort at work in the VM), but also its correspondence with the image beside it. It also confirms the first observation about regarding the possibility of use of Latin in the text.
I am inclined, though less tentatively, to consider the reading of the significant “daiin” as Batin, borrowed likely from the astrological sources or experts the author was consulting, to be noteworthy and fitting to the nature of the material in the manuscript. It also points to the possibility that even when using Latin abbreviations, words from other languages or local dialects of them may be present in the text, as another playful ciphering and privatizing strategy.
Admittedly, the above are NOT sufficient, but please consider also the following.
In my view, the text is likely a natural language employing short-handed and abbreviation systems similar in principle to the way Latin abbreviations and contractions were used at the time. However, this does not mean it uses entirely standard abbreviation symbols and systems. It may have partially used some symbols (such as 9 for -us or 2 for R, etc.), even then modifying their significations and meanings privately for the author’s purpose. But the author could have invented her own abbreviation systems for reasons of privacy.
She could have also used simple and easily readable ciphering techniques, included omission of redundant words (hence, texts sounding like ‘word salad’), baselining superscripts or rendering them differently as part of baseline letters, substitutions or hiding of letters following consistent triggers (such as the example I have shared for Botrus or Batin when a phonetic ‘t’ may be hidden under an ‘a’ besides a vowel), using multiple languages known to her or as also found in books she read or consultations she made with astrological or medicinal assistants (such as the example of using “Batin” for inner/essence/occultation), reduplications of words at times that can be easily ignored or even using intentionally employed ‘gibberish’ (but only for ciphering reasons) amid valid and meaningful text.
We do not have to abide by an either/or logic to consider whether the text is meaningful or gibberish. Gibberish text, even reduplications, could have been used to distract unfriendly others, and she could have just ignored gibberish material inserted amid valid text for her private use of the book.
I am not inclined to believe that all reduplications are an invalid part of the VM language. They could be chants, repeated words for emphasis, or as made necessary for the topic being discussed. If a few paragraphs are discussing, say, plant roots, or baths, a lot, it would be normal to see an associated word repeated many times. The adjacent reduplications could be resulting from a sentence beginning with a word that the previous sentence ended with. Since we don’t have punctuation, and can’t read the text, we cannot yet assume reduplications as not valid expressions, though some may be employed as a ciphering strategy.
The challenge for reading the text for the experts among you (not including me of course as far as linguistics or statistics go) is considering that privacy-concerned, not publicly intended, nature and usefulness of the handbook for her. If “words” are highly short-handed and abbreviated, some letters standing for words, words for sentences, etc., with ciphering rules applied, then I am not sure how statistical evaluations can be made in a reliable way for deciphering linguistic patterns in the text. We are of course facing a text where some material is not legible, perhaps inked over incorrectly at times, and of course also those many other many pages missing, which may have included keys for reading the text as well. I think the diversity of transcriptions that have become used over the decades have at times caused new problems in the study of VM, almost as if folks have been studying the transcriptions, not the Voynich manuscript itself. Loss of visual data in such studies, in my view, have been detrimental in leading to losing tennis games, so to speak.
Given the long text, it would not be practical to assume any super-complicated and time-consuming ciphering techniques being used in the Voynich manuscript, and the author did not need them, since extremely personalized, idiosyncratic, and non-standard short-hand and abbreviation system could provide her a strong measure of protection for the practical use of the handbook by her. And apparently it has worked for centuries, if that was how she did it.
Moreover, I am not inclined to regard the text is being entirely technical astrological data. Again, there is no need to use an either/or logic here. Some of the text when needed may as well be technical data about astrological information, but this does not mean everything is so.
Just because letters such as o and c are used for technical astrological significations does not mean they can’t be also just simple letters used for rendering meaningful text to her. Having double-c’s with or without diacritics was a common feature of Latin abbreviations used, and if personally re-signified by her to mean something else she intended to say, four c’s following each other, two having diacritics and others not standing for some contractions we don’t know yet, would not be unthinkable.
Also, if the first page of the manuscript is indeed an intended first page, it does not make sense for astrological data being given there, when no such material has yet commenced. Sweeping either/or logic applications may not prove helpful in this case either.
I am at this point non-committal as to the overall language of the text, but based on the last page, partially read, marginalia, as I noted above, and the reading of Botrus, and possibly Batin, I am inclined to believe that mainly (highly short-handed and abbreviated, in an idiosyncratic way) Latin is guiding its writing but with some German and other local dialects or words borrowed from other languages being also present, at least.
I will postpone more judgments about the language of the manuscript to the point where we may be able to narrow down the authorship of the manuscript to specific person(s), hypothetically speaking. I think that may provide us a back-door way of going about narrowing down the language possibilities, even if we still end up not being able deciphered the text.
Although it may appear still as incompletely interpreted, I find the marginalia on the last page of the manuscript, thanks to the efforts of many including especially Koen G. (even though he’d likely disagree humbly), as being a sort of a Rosetta stone, a tip of an iceberg, revealing that at some point someone treated the manuscript as being, first, readable (so, not a gibberish), second comprised of Latin and some German material. Sometime getting into details leads us to lose sight of an elephant in the room, or at least a reliable part of it.
That marginalia sounds like a reliable steppingstone, for me. Not sufficient, but given both Voynichese, some Latin, and some German, in seemingly meaning ways (for its scriber), were shared in the marginalia, along with some unknown still other words, I think it provides a rather fitting window to the nature of the language being used in the manuscript.
Even Koen G.’s interview with Dr. Katherine Hindley (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) provides some clues as to the extent folks could have gone at that time in “privatizing” their healing or medicinal texts for public protection or privacy reasons, or even for the sake of assurance by an expert supplying the text to be sure he is paid before supplying the key for deciphering a text of medicinal or astrological prescriptions he was offering (see the interview, around the time 36:40, for interesting points shared by Dr. Hindley).
My reading of the “word” beside the Pleiades image as Botrus is also reliable enough for me, as explained before, not only in terms of its letters (except for that ‘a’ which for me is itself a signifier of possible ciphering effort at work in the VM), but also its correspondence with the image beside it. It also confirms the first observation about regarding the possibility of use of Latin in the text.
I am inclined, though less tentatively, to consider the reading of the significant “daiin” as Batin, borrowed likely from the astrological sources or experts the author was consulting, to be noteworthy and fitting to the nature of the material in the manuscript. It also points to the possibility that even when using Latin abbreviations, words from other languages or local dialects of them may be present in the text, as another playful ciphering and privatizing strategy.
Admittedly, the above are NOT sufficient, but please consider also the following.
In my view, the text is likely a natural language employing short-handed and abbreviation systems similar in principle to the way Latin abbreviations and contractions were used at the time. However, this does not mean it uses entirely standard abbreviation symbols and systems. It may have partially used some symbols (such as 9 for -us or 2 for R, etc.), even then modifying their significations and meanings privately for the author’s purpose. But the author could have invented her own abbreviation systems for reasons of privacy.
She could have also used simple and easily readable ciphering techniques, included omission of redundant words (hence, texts sounding like ‘word salad’), baselining superscripts or rendering them differently as part of baseline letters, substitutions or hiding of letters following consistent triggers (such as the example I have shared for Botrus or Batin when a phonetic ‘t’ may be hidden under an ‘a’ besides a vowel), using multiple languages known to her or as also found in books she read or consultations she made with astrological or medicinal assistants (such as the example of using “Batin” for inner/essence/occultation), reduplications of words at times that can be easily ignored or even using intentionally employed ‘gibberish’ (but only for ciphering reasons) amid valid and meaningful text.
We do not have to abide by an either/or logic to consider whether the text is meaningful or gibberish. Gibberish text, even reduplications, could have been used to distract unfriendly others, and she could have just ignored gibberish material inserted amid valid text for her private use of the book.
I am not inclined to believe that all reduplications are an invalid part of the VM language. They could be chants, repeated words for emphasis, or as made necessary for the topic being discussed. If a few paragraphs are discussing, say, plant roots, or baths, a lot, it would be normal to see an associated word repeated many times. The adjacent reduplications could be resulting from a sentence beginning with a word that the previous sentence ended with. Since we don’t have punctuation, and can’t read the text, we cannot yet assume reduplications as not valid expressions, though some may be employed as a ciphering strategy.
The challenge for reading the text for the experts among you (not including me of course as far as linguistics or statistics go) is considering that privacy-concerned, not publicly intended, nature and usefulness of the handbook for her. If “words” are highly short-handed and abbreviated, some letters standing for words, words for sentences, etc., with ciphering rules applied, then I am not sure how statistical evaluations can be made in a reliable way for deciphering linguistic patterns in the text. We are of course facing a text where some material is not legible, perhaps inked over incorrectly at times, and of course also those many other many pages missing, which may have included keys for reading the text as well. I think the diversity of transcriptions that have become used over the decades have at times caused new problems in the study of VM, almost as if folks have been studying the transcriptions, not the Voynich manuscript itself. Loss of visual data in such studies, in my view, have been detrimental in leading to losing tennis games, so to speak.
Given the long text, it would not be practical to assume any super-complicated and time-consuming ciphering techniques being used in the Voynich manuscript, and the author did not need them, since extremely personalized, idiosyncratic, and non-standard short-hand and abbreviation system could provide her a strong measure of protection for the practical use of the handbook by her. And apparently it has worked for centuries, if that was how she did it.
Moreover, I am not inclined to regard the text is being entirely technical astrological data. Again, there is no need to use an either/or logic here. Some of the text when needed may as well be technical data about astrological information, but this does not mean everything is so.
Just because letters such as o and c are used for technical astrological significations does not mean they can’t be also just simple letters used for rendering meaningful text to her. Having double-c’s with or without diacritics was a common feature of Latin abbreviations used, and if personally re-signified by her to mean something else she intended to say, four c’s following each other, two having diacritics and others not standing for some contractions we don’t know yet, would not be unthinkable.
Also, if the first page of the manuscript is indeed an intended first page, it does not make sense for astrological data being given there, when no such material has yet commenced. Sweeping either/or logic applications may not prove helpful in this case either.
I am at this point non-committal as to the overall language of the text, but based on the last page, partially read, marginalia, as I noted above, and the reading of Botrus, and possibly Batin, I am inclined to believe that mainly (highly short-handed and abbreviated, in an idiosyncratic way) Latin is guiding its writing but with some German and other local dialects or words borrowed from other languages being also present, at least.
I will postpone more judgments about the language of the manuscript to the point where we may be able to narrow down the authorship of the manuscript to specific person(s), hypothetically speaking. I think that may provide us a back-door way of going about narrowing down the language possibilities, even if we still end up not being able deciphered the text.