31-12-2025, 12:34 PM
Hello everyone,
My previous thread was locked and moved to the ChatGPT section. This was justified: I made the mistake of using AI tools to compile and format my raw notes into a "paper", which resulted in generic, AI-generated prose. I apologize for this breach of forum etiquette.
However, the underlying data—which I extracted manually—deserves a proper discussion.
Who I am & My Approach:
I am a researcher in Quantum Physics and Cosmology (Associate Professor). I am not a linguist. I approached the Voynich Manuscript not as a language to be read, but as a dataset to be solved, looking for signal consistencies, astronomical constants, and noise distribution (Zipf's Law).
Here is my core thesis, presented simply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HYPOTHESIS
The manuscript may use a logographic structure similar to Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform:
- Prefixes = Integer numerical values (Base 60)
- Suffixes = Sexagesimal fractions or grammatical markers
- Parsing Rule = "Maximal Munch" (always consume the longest possible defined prefix)
Note: I am not claiming the language IS Sumerian. I am suggesting the scribal METHOD (logograms + base 60) is the key to the structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY LOOK AT ANTIQUE SYSTEMS?
1. Content vs. Container: Carbon-14 dates the vellum (15th C.), not the origin of the data. Medieval scribes frequently copied antique scientific tables.
2. Mul.Apin Correspondence: The 12 zodiac signs in Folio F72 match the standard Babylonian names (documented in Hunger & Pingree, 1989, MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium, AfO Beiheft 24).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERIFIABLE TESTS
Test 1: Numerical Prefixes (The "Stems")
I assigned Base-60 values based on phonetic roots. The consistency is striking:
Prefix | Value | Sumerian Root | Interpretation
--------|-------|------------------|----------------------------------
qo- | 30 | AN (Sky) | 30° = One zodiac sign
ok- | 31 | EN (Lord) | ~31° = Longitude of Pleiades (~0 CE)
ot- | 32 | UD (Day/Sun) | Solar/Stellar culmination point
ch- | 24 | G (Big/Base) | 24 Hours
d- | 7 | GIŠ (Wood/Tool) | 7 Days (Lunar quarter)
Test 2: Fractional Suffixes (Working Hypothesis)
Assuming suffixes act as sexagesimal increments:
- -al = +1/60
- -ol = +2/60
- -ar = +3/60
- -or = +4/60
Note: These suffix values are hypothetical assignments. No clear statistical pattern (frequency, alphabetical order) justifies them yet. This is a recognized weak point in my model.
Test 3: Calculation Examples
Word | Calculation | Value
-------|------------------------|--------
okal | ok (31) + al (1/60) | 31.0167
qokal | qo (30) + al (1/60) | 30.0167
chol | ch (24) + ol (2/60) | 24.0333
dar | d (7) + ar (3/60) | 7.0500
Test 4: Precession Dating (The strongest evidence)
The prefix ok- (Value 31) is consistently associated with "Principal Star" or Pleiades groups.
- Current Position of Pleiades: ~60° ecliptic longitude
- Voynich Value (ok-): 31°
- Difference: ~29°
- Precession Rate: 1° per 72 years
- Precession Calculation: 29° × 72 years = ~2088 years
- Implied Observation Date: 2025 - 2088 = 60 BCE to 100 CE
This suggests the manuscript contains observational data from the Classical/Hellenistic era, copied onto 15th-century vellum.
Test 5: Zipf's Law
The Zipf coefficient of my parsed corpus is 0.81, compared to ~1.0 for natural narrative language. This "flatter" distribution is consistent with tabular/measurement data rather than prose, similar to astronomical tables or accounting records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REQUEST
I do not claim to have "solved" the Voynich. I am proposing a testable grid.
Could the community help me:
1. Check the Mul.Apin correlations on the Zodiac folios?
2. Test this "Maximal Munch" parsing on other sections?
3. Point out where the logic breaks?
My PDF analysis is still available for those who want to see the raw data tables. I welcome all constructive critique.
Regards,
Rochdi
My previous thread was locked and moved to the ChatGPT section. This was justified: I made the mistake of using AI tools to compile and format my raw notes into a "paper", which resulted in generic, AI-generated prose. I apologize for this breach of forum etiquette.
However, the underlying data—which I extracted manually—deserves a proper discussion.
Who I am & My Approach:
I am a researcher in Quantum Physics and Cosmology (Associate Professor). I am not a linguist. I approached the Voynich Manuscript not as a language to be read, but as a dataset to be solved, looking for signal consistencies, astronomical constants, and noise distribution (Zipf's Law).
Here is my core thesis, presented simply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HYPOTHESIS
The manuscript may use a logographic structure similar to Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform:
- Prefixes = Integer numerical values (Base 60)
- Suffixes = Sexagesimal fractions or grammatical markers
- Parsing Rule = "Maximal Munch" (always consume the longest possible defined prefix)
Note: I am not claiming the language IS Sumerian. I am suggesting the scribal METHOD (logograms + base 60) is the key to the structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY LOOK AT ANTIQUE SYSTEMS?
1. Content vs. Container: Carbon-14 dates the vellum (15th C.), not the origin of the data. Medieval scribes frequently copied antique scientific tables.
2. Mul.Apin Correspondence: The 12 zodiac signs in Folio F72 match the standard Babylonian names (documented in Hunger & Pingree, 1989, MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium, AfO Beiheft 24).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERIFIABLE TESTS
Test 1: Numerical Prefixes (The "Stems")
I assigned Base-60 values based on phonetic roots. The consistency is striking:
Prefix | Value | Sumerian Root | Interpretation
--------|-------|------------------|----------------------------------
qo- | 30 | AN (Sky) | 30° = One zodiac sign
ok- | 31 | EN (Lord) | ~31° = Longitude of Pleiades (~0 CE)
ot- | 32 | UD (Day/Sun) | Solar/Stellar culmination point
ch- | 24 | G (Big/Base) | 24 Hours
d- | 7 | GIŠ (Wood/Tool) | 7 Days (Lunar quarter)
Test 2: Fractional Suffixes (Working Hypothesis)
Assuming suffixes act as sexagesimal increments:
- -al = +1/60
- -ol = +2/60
- -ar = +3/60
- -or = +4/60
Note: These suffix values are hypothetical assignments. No clear statistical pattern (frequency, alphabetical order) justifies them yet. This is a recognized weak point in my model.
Test 3: Calculation Examples
Word | Calculation | Value
-------|------------------------|--------
okal | ok (31) + al (1/60) | 31.0167
qokal | qo (30) + al (1/60) | 30.0167
chol | ch (24) + ol (2/60) | 24.0333
dar | d (7) + ar (3/60) | 7.0500
Test 4: Precession Dating (The strongest evidence)
The prefix ok- (Value 31) is consistently associated with "Principal Star" or Pleiades groups.
- Current Position of Pleiades: ~60° ecliptic longitude
- Voynich Value (ok-): 31°
- Difference: ~29°
- Precession Rate: 1° per 72 years
- Precession Calculation: 29° × 72 years = ~2088 years
- Implied Observation Date: 2025 - 2088 = 60 BCE to 100 CE
This suggests the manuscript contains observational data from the Classical/Hellenistic era, copied onto 15th-century vellum.
Test 5: Zipf's Law
The Zipf coefficient of my parsed corpus is 0.81, compared to ~1.0 for natural narrative language. This "flatter" distribution is consistent with tabular/measurement data rather than prose, similar to astronomical tables or accounting records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REQUEST
I do not claim to have "solved" the Voynich. I am proposing a testable grid.
Could the community help me:
1. Check the Mul.Apin correlations on the Zodiac folios?
2. Test this "Maximal Munch" parsing on other sections?
3. Point out where the logic breaks?
My PDF analysis is still available for those who want to see the raw data tables. I welcome all constructive critique.
Regards,
Rochdi