Is this a root-assisted translation?
(12-07-2026, 04:07 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you have any specific arguments, based on the plant depicted, on the context or the linguistic parallels that the translation of the word cannot be turnip, please let me know!
You can simply refuse to consider the problems with simple substitution, but it does not make them go away! There are one of two problems with the chart you made in the first post:
- There aren't enough letters in the Voynichese alphabet to extend that method to all the letters in the Latin alphabet, so words cannot be respresented this way
- If there are enough letters, it is because there are no positional variants and you need to explain why q only ever starts words while n only ever ends words because no European language has such a small inventory and so many words fixed to a single "slot".
(Please note that like the page I linked, these arguments do not depend on a certain entropy value, but are instead qualitative descriptions of the text.) There are a few ways around this---the easiest being its not simple substitution. The poorly named Chinese Theory posits that we will eventually find a language that has phonotactics that fit the alphabet. People have occasionally suggested leaning in and arguing maybe the author really did have a preference for certain word forms, but it means most texts aren't suitable for translation
into Voynichesee, and writing long passages that way is extremely difficult.
I know you think people are pointing this out to "prolong the mystery" or something, but if a solution is forthcoming, it will come from honestly dealing with the systemic facts of the manuscript, not from pretending we cannot make grounded observations about the wordform and what that implies.
(12-07-2026, 10:03 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There aren't enough letters in the Voynichese alphabet to extend that method to all the letters in the Latin alphabet, so words cannot be respresented this way
You can associate several letters with a single symbol. There is nothing extraordinary about this substitution technique. Homophonic ciphers have been known since the early 15th century
(12-07-2026, 10:39 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You can associate several letters with a single symbol.
You can indeed approach cribs differently than the table in the first post. In fact, I would encourage that approach
(12-07-2026, 10:03 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
If there are enough letters, it is because there are no positional variants and you need to explain why q only ever starts words while n only ever ends words because no European language has such a small inventory and so many words fixed to a single "slot".
That‘s not completely correct.
(12-07-2026, 10:39 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (12-07-2026, 10:03 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There aren't enough letters in the Voynichese alphabet to extend that method to all the letters in the Latin alphabet, so words cannot be respresented this way
You can associate several letters with a single symbol. There is nothing extraordinary about this substitution technique. Homophonic ciphers have been known since the early 15th century
However, that is the wrong way 'round.
In homophonic ciphers, the plain text has a normal number of characters, and the cipher text a much higher number.
Here, the cipher text (Voynich alphabet) is the one with the low number of characters.
So, is there a possibility that the Voynich encoder mapped several plain text characters to the same cipher character?
That looks like a really bad idea.
But this is effectively what people are assuming when they translate a Voynich character (say
l) sometimes to l, sometimes to m, etc. (invented example, but this sort of thing is done all the time, usually because simple substitution can't work).
(13-07-2026, 02:31 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (12-07-2026, 10:39 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (12-07-2026, 10:03 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There aren't enough letters in the Voynichese alphabet to extend that method to all the letters in the Latin alphabet, so words cannot be respresented this way
You can associate several letters with a single symbol. There is nothing extraordinary about this substitution technique. Homophonic ciphers have been known since the early 15th century
However, that is the wrong way 'round.
In homophonic ciphers, the plain text has a normal number of characters, and the cipher text a much higher number.
Here, the cipher text (Voynich alphabet) is the one with the low number of characters.
So, is there a possibility that the Voynich encoder mapped several plain text characters to the same cipher character?
That looks like a really bad idea.
But this is effectively what people are assuming when they translate a Voynich character (say l) sometimes to l, sometimes to m, etc. (invented example, but this sort of thing is done all the time, usually because simple substitution can't work).
This approach will not be difficult for the decrypter. If I encrypt APPLE as OLUIA, and the L character has the values P and H, I think you will understand that AHPLE is the wrong decryption.
We shouldn't forget that the author made VMS for a person/people who could read it, but not for us.
(13-07-2026, 06:37 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This approach will not be difficult for the decrypter. If I encrypt APPLE as OLUIA, and the L character has the values P and H, I think you will understand that AHPLE is the wrong decryption.
But what about pot/hot, put/hut, peel/heel... ?
This is becoming a principle discussion about substitution-or-cipher;
maybe a bit deviating in @BessAgritianins thread.
Fact is, that nearly all european languages use a form of ropa/repa/rübe/reps/rapa/ruope/nabo etc. for "turnip" (which turns the english version to one of the exceptions).
Bess`s Go for this label meaning something like "turnip", accordingly to the related image, is completely ok and understandable, as this would cover a lot of languages. Even though I am not convinced about her specific target language.
But the relevant question is:
Did the artist really "explain" his drawing with that added Vord in his language, or is this just any other possible attribute and meaning?
Voynichese looks rather non-explaining.
And when talking about "low number of characters": what is the number of characters exactly?
(13-07-2026, 12:15 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (13-07-2026, 06:37 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This approach will not be difficult for the decrypter. If I encrypt APPLE as OLUIA, and the L character has the values P and H, I think you will understand that AHPLE is the wrong decryption.
But what about pot/hot, put/hut, peel/heel... ?
I was asked a similar question by @oshfdk, but he was asking about anagrams of the words made-edam, etc. If you have context, there are no problems with similar words
Suppose we have a symbol 1 that encodes p and h. 2 encodes ot, and I'm too lazy to encrypt the rest of the words
In general, you are given two phrases:
12DOG
GREEN12
I think it won't be difficult for you to figure out which letter is equal to 1.
(13-07-2026, 12:38 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And when talking about "low number of characters": what is the number of characters exactly?
It is likely to be less than 25-26, i.e., less than the number of letters in the Latin alphabet.