The Voynich Ninja

(29-03-2026, 11:59 AM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.„Mine“ is something completely different than in „Minne“ in today‘s german, but you will find the (medieval) word „Minne“ written as „Mine“ in old texts.

Nach alemannische Schreibweise ist es aber richtig geschrieben.
Gegenüber dem MHD ist es gerade umgekehrt.
Doppelkonsonanten ziehen die Betonung in die länge und machen sie nicht scharf.
"miine = meine, Mine = Minne und Minne =Mine."
Königin der Liebe und Bergwerk/Gesichtszug.
Daher ist "Mutter" für uns falsch, richtig wäre immer noch alte Schreibweise "Muther" alemannisch "Muether".
Seit ca. 1960 gilt im ganzen deutschen Sprachbereich MHD. Wir sind aber im VM nicht in dieser Zeit.


According to Alemannic spelling, however, it is spelled correctly.
Compared to Middle High German, it is actually the opposite.
Double consonants lengthen the stress rather than making it sharp.
“miine = meine, Mine = Minne, and Minne = Mine.”
Queen of Love and mine/facial feature.
Therefore, “Mutter” is incorrect for us; the correct form would still be the old spelling ‘Muther’ or, in Alemannic, “Muether.”
Since around 1960, Modern High German (MHD) has been in use throughout the German-speaking world. However, in the VM, we are not in that era.

My native language is also German.
My mother was born in Kiel and grew up near Holland. My grandparents still spoke and wrote in Platt, Low German.
I was born and raised in Zurich, but I also spent a lot of time with my grandparents.
I know more than just MHD.

And that's German, too.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Here’s how it works: The double consonant (usually) appears after a short vowel. A good example: "Ratte" (rat)-short "a," but the "t" is pronounced like a single "t." If you drop one "t" you get "rate" (English: "guess"), which is a verb. In that case, it’s a long "a."

And that, of course, makes a difference.

But, to be clear: No cipher in the world would encode German double consonants; that would be the key to direct decryption. In a phonetic cipher, there wouldn’t even be a double "t" 

(29-03-2026, 06:58 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, to be clear: No cipher in the world would encode German double consonants; that would be the key to direct decryption. In a phonetic cipher, there wouldn’t even be a double "t"  

]

Yep. And no one would bother inventing a new alphabet for German, but still use three glyphs to write the /ʃ/ sound.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (not to be confused with steGAnography) is the once-popular-now-defunct art of speed writing, useful for note-taking by students and recording scribes at legal proceedings, parliaments, etc.  For each language there was at least one stenography method, often more than one.  They all started from a basic principle: forget the official spelling rules, encode the sounds phonetically. 

Thus, if Voynichese was developed to make dictation more efficient (as I believe), you can bet that it does not use doubling to indicate the sounds of "doubled consonants" - in German Italian, Latin, etc.

All the best, --stolfi

(29-03-2026, 06:58 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here’s how it works: The double consonant (usually) appears after a short vowel. A good example: "Ratte" (rat)-short "a," but the "t" is pronounced like a single "t." If you drop one "t" you get "rate" (English: "guess"), which is a verb. In that case, it’s a long "a."

You don‘t need some verb here:
german „Rate“ (= engl. „rate“, of interest, growth or anything) and german „Ratte“ (= engl. „rat“, surely not interesting rodent) are 2 completely different nouns, just recognizable by the length of „a“: 
long in „Rate“, short in „Ratte“. As a result, the longer word is spoken a bit faster — which is quite the opposite than having a short break before doubled consonants. Not the „tt“ causes a length, the „t“ does it by keeping the „a“ long.

@Stolfi: your example „Krabbe“ is spoken nearly like [c]rubbe[r]; short „a“ like short „u“ in engl. rubber.
There is no German word like „Krabe“, but a close one, „Knabe“ (old-fashioned word for „Boy“). Not surprisingly, with a long-pronounced „a“. This word is also a bit longer spoken than „Krabbe“:
you all may decide by yourself, whether the „bb“ sounds like a „b“ and the „tt“ sounds like a „t“ or not.

Problem is, that German authors used randomly doubled consonants for words we don‘t expect there.
This is an example:
[attachment=14934]

„Lufft“ (engl. „air“) and „Meisterschafft“ (engl. something like „mastership“, not really „championship“)
are written with „ff“ for not any reason. „Lufft“ can be found from medieval scripts on to books of 19th century, it was standardized to today‘s „Luft“ then, as it cannot be messed up with a similar word.

I don‘t know of any book or script that ever came completely without any doubled consonants. VMS would be the first and only one: it may be really unique, but not in this way…

(29-03-2026, 06:58 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And that, of course, makes a difference.
But, to be clear: No cipher in the world would encode German double consonants; that would be the key to direct decryption. In a phonetic cipher, there wouldn’t even be a double "t" 

To be clear: without clear indicators there is not any chance to separate „Rate“ from „Ratte“.
Some „just phonetic“ script can never exist due to this structural problem.
@JoJo_Jost: you just confirmed here that „phonetic bavarian“ cannot work.

@Aga Tentakulus: not quite, „facial expression“ would be „Miene“.
„Mine“ keeps to be engl. „mine“, delivering coal or gold, or a heavy explosion.
And, too sad, Alemannic is just a small fraction of German, it‘s rules are not „overall“ rules.

edit: I see there was a comment about stenography meanwhile:
well, I had not to learn this anymore, but I know it as a complex system of abbreviations for syllables, words, and parts or complete (often used) sentences. Stenography exceeds the few symbols of Voynichese by numbers -
if you try to put this as something like a „phonetic stenographic bavarian notation“: good luck, you have at least one foot in the tar pit then already.

(29-03-2026, 07:56 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@JoJo_Jost: you just confirmed here that „phonetic bavarian“ cannot work.

   

very funny....

No, it’s actually the other way around—you’ve just proven that you haven’t even begun to look into the cipher presented here and have simply started arguing off the cuff.

Because if you had even superficially examined the cipher, you would have quickly realized that double consonants are probably the lesser problem when it comes to the variability of this cipher.

But still: if it were only a matter of double consonants, that could easily be clarified by the context. That is easy...

But why on earth does everyone think that the VMS must be a perfect and good cipher? If it were, the text would likely have been deciphered long ago. But a chaotic, ill-conceived, and uninspired cipher based on a phonetically written dialect would have easily withstood all these attempts. Precisely because many people think just like you, Stefan

One should consider the time period: at the beginning of the 15th century, ciphers were mostly still very rudimentary. If a monk, provincial doctor, or someone else had developed an original cipher at that time wich is not a easy substitution cipher, it would certainly have been anything but sophisticated. It would likely have been chaotic and unstructured...

And if it is an absorption cipher in which a great deal of information was destroyed, as the statistics on the VMS clearly demonstrate, then “unambiguity” is simply NOT guaranteed. That would be an anachronism. The one thing - the destruction of information - does not fit with the other, unambiguity. Because at that time, there exist simply no cipher that could have done that; those didn’t exist until the end of the 15th century.


I think we’ve discussed the double consonants more than enough by now. It’s getting boring. That’s not even remotely an argument against the cipher; there are much better ones that I’d actually agree with as criticism - believe me.

But after several hundred years of trying to crack it, you have to realize that you need to think outside the box...

But there is a far more interesting question: If it is a hoax - or a generated code with no actual content - how is it possible that the frequencies of certain components bear so many similarities to a natural language, as demonstrated above? That is what nobody has answered yet....

(29-03-2026, 07:56 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don‘t know of any book or script that ever came completely without any doubled consonants.

But all the German spelling systems you know are variations of the same general spelling system, derived from the Latin script and using mostly Latin letters.  You don't know any example of someone inventing an original alphabet and original spelling system for German. 

Since Old English, most texts in English used variations of the same spelling "system" (if we can call it that), using mostly Latin letters, that ultimately evolved from Latin spelling.  But there were a few radical spelling reform proposals that would have used a new alphabet and completely different spelling.  The least unsuccessful of them was the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  Most if not all of the doubled consonants of standard English spelling become single consonant signs in Shavian:

"? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ? ????? ?????? ?????."
"the batter hit the ball with a sudden clapping racket"

[EDIT: This wonderful forum software turned all the Shavian letters to "?", even though my browser was showing them fine in the edit window. Sorry. Ask the Internet to render that sentence in Shavian.]

That's because, in the standard English spelling, the double consonants are generally used to change the sound of the preceding vowel (like German, as you say).

Quote:To be clear: without clear indicators there is not any chance to separate „Rate“ from „Ratte“. Some „just phonetic“ script can never exist due to this structural problem.

If the sounds and meanings are different, a phonetic script should have a way to distinguish them.  Logically it should be a mark on the vowel, rather than on the consonant.  The Internet says that the IPA notation for those two words is "Rate" = ['ʁa:tə] and "Ratte" = ['ʁatə], where the «'» indicates that the next syllable is the stressed one, and the «:» indicates that the preceding vowel is long.  A more conventional way could be "Rate" -> "Rāte", "Ratte" -> "Rate".  Or "Rate" -> "Rate", "Ratte" -> "Rǎte".

Quote: I know [stenography] as a complex system of abbreviations for syllables, words, and parts or complete (often used) sentences. Stenography exceeds the few symbols of Voynichese by numbers

That is "advanced" stenography.  It requires memorizing all those abbreviations.  Basic stenography is a usually just a phonetic alphabet with simple letter shapes, like Shavian.  Usually "cursive" so that a whole word can be written in a single stroke, without lifting the pen from the paper.  (In fact, that is actually the point of ordinary cursive script, too: to be faster to write than "print" letters.)  

For a book that was intended to be read by others (as I believe is the case of the VMS), it would make sense to stick to such a "basic stenography": a phonetic alphabet with simple letter shapes, with few if any abbreviations.  Especially if the Scribe had to be trained to copy the script.

All the best, --stolfi

(29-03-2026, 09:54 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
I think we’ve discussed the double consonants more than enough by now. It’s getting boring. That’s not even remotely an argument against the cipher; there are much better ones that I’d actually agree with as criticism - believe me.

But after several hundred years of trying to crack it, you have to realize that you need to think outside the box...

@JoJo_Jost
You can also start now to think about doubled vowels and the German tendency to combine words to much longer ones, and which German words end up to 40% in the same "cipher" letter; 
Voynichese structure does not comply very well to our language at all corners.

I forget to mention for the non-german speakers here: "Luft" and "Meisterschaft" are pronounced with short "u" and short "a" even after standardization of 19th century. Those standards saved a lot of letters, but did not produce constant clear rules, like in this case. Speakers have to learn and mention such exceptions.

"Schafen" is not the same as "Schaffen", "die Schaffe"(outfashioned word today) is competely different from "die Schafe" and "Schaft"(short "a"!) is not at all "Schafft". And Meisterschaft is not necessarily the same as Meister-Schaft...
You can't put even those few examples in "phonetic" "cipher" without destroying the core information and will never be able to recover that, so you open a backdoor already:
that cipher must have many faults (even though it was written down flawlessly by several scribes). Nice trick.

@both
The "Magic cipher" (and it's preassumed defects to "explain" later the twists and turns any interpretations will need) or stenography, even Shavian, have just a small problem:
Shavian needs at least 48 characters only to show English, the standard steno for German is about 100.
VMS has, with much good will, not more than ~30 characters. Others see even significantly lower numbers.
How will a "cipher" or shorthand work?
And if: it would be easily possible to crack that with todays computers in no time. But nobody made it yet.

When extending just the double-consonant problem to Latin, you may think a moment about "curat" and "currat" (just the smallest, first example to get in mind) -- double consonants are vital for Latin and it's follow-up languages as well, nothing that came as a kind of luxury just some time ago.


@JoJo_Jost
The strong belief into a credo "it must be Latin!", "it must be (Swiss)German!" combined with a craving for The-Magic-Cipher (that can hold it all within less than 3 dozens of characters) is the tar pit.
You stand in it already. Will be more than boring there.
If you really want to "think out of the box", leave the Alps -- and Italy and Western Europe.

.....

I've solved it!!!!


I've been running frequency tests all week and comparing them with the four MHD corpora, and suddenly—as if a magnifying glass had been focused—everything fell into place. Not just a line here and there. Everything! The ENTIRE page f1r. Page one. It's the table of contents of the Voynich Manuscript.

I’ll be publishing the complete updated cipher (v9) in the next few days; there’s a lot to explain, some correspondences have shifted, and I’ve noticed a few new ones that I need to document properly. But this is so mind-blowing, I can’t keep it to myself. Here is f1r, line by line: EVA, then my MHD reading, then English.
The page has four distinct sections that obviously correspond exactly to the four parts of the manuscript—I’ve marked them with headings to make it clear what’s what, but these aren’t in the text.



SECTION I — The Herbs (= Herbal folios)
f1r.1
fachys ykal ar ataiin shol shory cthres y kor sholdy
Wachse gar, er ein soll schöner Trunk, gesotten gar, soll sich
(Grow well — one shall [make] a fine potion, cooked well, shall itself)

f1r.2
sory ckhar or y kair chtaiin shar ase cthar cthar dan
und sorge ngar, er gezieret den Trunk, schaue ase, der Trunk der Trunk dann (and take care well, he adorns the potion, look at the plant, the potion the potion then)

f1r.3
syaiir sheky or ykaiin shod cthoary cthes daraiin sy
und ein Magen er gekauen, schod Trunklein, Trunk des darein und (and a stomach he chewed, pour the small potion, the potion's [essence] therein and)

f1r.4
soiin oteey oteos roloty cthiar daiin okaiin or okan
und ein die Huote, das Moos, rolend Trunk der ein, der Garten er der Garten (and the one protection, the moss, revolving potion of the one, the garden, he, the garden)

f1r.5
sair y chear cthaiin cphar cfhaiin
und er gemenget den Trunk, Pfeffer und Pfein (and he mixed the potion, pepper and fine [herbs])

f1r.6
ydaraishy
gedarreischet (dried and mixed — a compound verb)

f1r.7
odar c'y shol cphoy oydar sh s cfhoaiin shodary
der Dar gewürzt soll, Violen, der Dar schaue und Pfauen-ein, schöner Dar (the dried [herb] spiced shall [be], violets, the dried [herb] — look — and peacock-plant, fine dried [herb])

f1r.8
yshey shody okchoy otchol chocthy os chy dain chor kos

geschieden schöd, der Menge, der Honig, Möschtîg, als nicht sein, machen gos (separated, poured, the quantity, the honey, musky, as not yet, make the brew)

f1r.9
daiin shos cfhol shody
sein und schoss, Pfahl, schöd (his and shoot, stalk, pour)

f1r.10
dain os teody
sein als hiozet (it shall be, when the time [is right])

---

SECTION II — The Stars (= Astrological folios)

f1r.11
ydain cphesaiin ols cphey ytain shoshy cphodal es
gesein Venusein, als der Venus getragen, schosset Pfodal eis (determined by Venus-one, as Venus carries [it], the crystal shoots ice)

f1r.12
oksho kshoy otairin oteol okan shodain sckhey daiin
der Schau, die Geschau, der Stern, der Öl, der Gan, schöner Sein, und Menge sein (the observation, the viewing, the star, the oil, the course, fine being, and quantity be)

f1r.13
shoy ckhey kodaiin cphy cphodaiils cthey sho oldain d
schau Menge, gotsein, nicht Pfodal sein, Trunk-ey, schau, der Ölsein, und (observe the quantity, God's being, not the crystal's being, the potion's [nature], look, the oil's being, and)

f1r.14
dain oiin chol odaiin chodain chdy okain d?n cthy kod
sein der ein, molen, der Sein, Modsein, nicht, der Gain, den nicht god (his the one, grind, the being, moon-being, not, the course, the not-good [= bad day])

f1r.15
daiin shckhey ckeo r char shey kol chol chol kor chal
sein Schlüssel-ey, Weg er mar, schau gol, mol, mol, gor, mal (his key-thing, the way he marks, look: gold, grind, grind, ferment, mark)

f1r.16
sho chol shodan kshy kchy d or chodaiin sho koeam
schau mol, Schotan, Geschau, nicht, und er Modsein, schau goiem (look: grind, the calendar, observation, not, and he the moon-being, look: the assembly)

---

SECTION III — The Machine (= Biological/Plumbing folios)
f1r.17
ycho tchey chekain sheo pshol dydyd cthy daictoy
gewaschen, Dreh-ey, Megein, Scheu, Pfschaul, sîsîs, nicht, Drehtoy (washed, the turning-thing, the mechanism, look!, the viewing-tube, hissing, nay: the turning-toy)

f1r.18
yto shol she kodshey cphealy dar ain dain ckhyds
geholt soll sche, gotschau, Pfielig, Dar ein sein, Menge und Saft (fetched shall she [= the machine], God-look, arrow-like, the dry one be, quantity and juice)

f1r.19
dchar shcthaiin okaiir chey chy tol cthols dlocto
Schar schlüsselein, der Geirr, nicht, nicht, Honig, Trunk des Öls, Dilöchte (array of small keys, the gear, not, not, honey, potion of oil, small holes)

f1r.20
shok chor chey dain ckhey
Schock, Machor, nicht, sein, Menge (shock, the maker, not yet, its quantity)

f1r.21
otol daiiin
der Honig, der sein (the honey, that is [the fuel])

---

SECTION IV — Using the Machine (= Pharmaceutical/Recipe folios)

f1r.22
cpho shaiin shokcheey chol tshodeesy shey pydeey cha ro dar
Violen schauen, Schock-Mey, mol, Dreh-Tschodesier, scheu, Pfîdesier, ma ro dar (see the violets, shock-mechanism, grind, turn the great rotator, look!, the great feeder, make round, dry)

f1r.23
ydoin chol dain cthal dar shear kaiin dar shey cthar
getoin, mol, sein, Trunk-al, Dar, Schauer, Gauen, Dar, scheu, der Trunk (resound, grind, be, potion-all, dry, the shower, observe, dry, look!, the potion)

f1r.24
cho ?o kaiin shoaiin okol daiin far cthol daiin ctholdar
Mo, ?o, Gauen, Schau-ein, der Gol, sein, Var, Trunk-ol, sein, Trunk-ol-dar (grind, ??, observe, look-into, the gold, be, travel, potion-oil, be, potion-oil-dry)

f1r.25
ycheey okeey oky daiin okchey kokaiin o?chol k?dchy dal
gemeiey, der Guet, der Weg, sein, der Menge, gogauen, der ?Mol, die ?Nicht, Salbe (unified, the good, the way, be, the quantity, fully observed, the ?grind, the ?not, salve)

f1r.26
dcheo shody koshey cthy ok chey keey keey dal chtor
Smeo, schöd, goschey, nicht, der ok, nicht, guet, guet, Salbe, der Honig-Tor (anoint!, pour, fully viewed, not, that one, not, good, good, salve, the honey-gate)

f1r.27
?eo? chol chok choty chotey
?eo?, mol, Mog, Motîg, Motîg-ey (???, grind, might, mighty, the mighty one)

f1r.28
dchaiin
Smen (anointing)



I know this raises a thousand questions. I know some of these mappings need proper documentation. The cipher update to v9 will come in the next few posts — there are shifts in the vowel system and two new bank gallows readings that made all of this possible. I need a few days to write it all up properly.

But the structure is unmistakable: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a table of contents. Herbs, stars, machine, application. Exactly the four sections of the manuscript, in order.

One more thing, and I almost didn't mention it because it sounds too good to be true: the astrological section (lines 11–16) specifies exactly ONE day per year when the machine can be operated and the life elixir is potent. Cross-referencing the star-calendar with the Röltag tradition in Bavarian monastic medicine, that day is:

April 1st - crazy stuff...