07-03-2026, 02:25 PM
Hello everyone,
I have been looking at the manuscript with a fresh perspective focusing on the functional logic of the layout rather than just searching for a known language.
My core observations:
1. Word Growth: I noticed a "child/children" pattern where roots like pcho and qodo grow with suffixes as you move down the page.
2. Anatomical Mapping: The words seem to change based on the part of the plant they are next to. Lighter at the top and heavier at the roots.
3. Preparation Verbs: I believe the suffixes are instructions. For example, -ol could mean boil, -and could mean grind, and -ar could mean burn or dry.
4. The Apprentice Theory: I suspect the last page was written by an apprentice. They were trying to translate the masters difficult shorthand into common Latin or German but gave up.
I would like to put this out there for anyone who has the tools to see if these action suffixes hold up across the rest of the book. I think the key is in the process, not just the names.
I have been looking at the manuscript with a fresh perspective focusing on the functional logic of the layout rather than just searching for a known language.
My core observations:
1. Word Growth: I noticed a "child/children" pattern where roots like pcho and qodo grow with suffixes as you move down the page.
2. Anatomical Mapping: The words seem to change based on the part of the plant they are next to. Lighter at the top and heavier at the roots.
3. Preparation Verbs: I believe the suffixes are instructions. For example, -ol could mean boil, -and could mean grind, and -ar could mean burn or dry.
4. The Apprentice Theory: I suspect the last page was written by an apprentice. They were trying to translate the masters difficult shorthand into common Latin or German but gave up.
I would like to put this out there for anyone who has the tools to see if these action suffixes hold up across the rest of the book. I think the key is in the process, not just the names.