22-01-2026, 03:56 PM
Hello everyone,
I would like to share a[attachment=13607]
My approach, called SAM (Système d’Analyse Morphologique / Morphological Analysis System), treats the text as a technical, procedural notation written in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin (14th–15th century style), rather than a ciphered natural language or an invented script.
Key points of the method:
This is not a full translation claim. It is a testable, revisable reading framework that avoids linguistic encoding assumptions.
I welcome constructive feedback, especially on:
Thank you for your time and thoughts!
Best regards,
I would like to share a[attachment=13607]
My approach, called SAM (Système d’Analyse Morphologique / Morphological Analysis System), treats the text as a technical, procedural notation written in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin (14th–15th century style), rather than a ciphered natural language or an invented script.
Key points of the method:
- I deliberately exclude EVA (Extensible Voynich Alphabet) and all phonetically-oriented transcriptions, i use my own transcription based on ancien alphabet.
- I have created my own functional, glyph-based transcription system that groups shapes directly into operational units (e.g. roaux → radix, ora → hora/time marker, chod/chot → coquere/ripening process, re- → reprise/repetition, bauba/baux → bulbus/base, etc.).
- These units are not phonetic values but functional markers inspired by abbreviated Latin in medieval botanical, medical and alchemical recipe books.
- I've only used AI assistance specifically to help expand and rephrase the abbreviated forms into plausible, non-classical medieval Latin sentences, while keeping the interpretation probabilistic and revisable.
- Every reading is systematically cross-checked against the illustrations (root emphasis, plant structure, cyclical diagrams, bathing scenes) to ensure procedural coherence.
This is not a full translation claim. It is a testable, revisable reading framework that avoids linguistic encoding assumptions.
I welcome constructive feedback, especially on:
- consistency of marker assignments across sections,
- parallels (or contradictions) with known abbreviated Latin manuscripts,
- iconographic fit.
Thank you for your time and thoughts!
Best regards,