I would like to ask for a little more feedback from the experts in the forum.
Regardless of whether the manuscript can be deciphered according to my method - Could the manuscript have been written according to this method?
A yes or no would be enough for me.
____
Ich würde hierzu gerne einmal etwas mehr Feedback von den Experten im Forum erbitten.
Unabhängig davon, ob sich das Manuskript nach meiner Methode entschlüsseln lässt - Könnte man das Manuskript nach dieser Methode geschrieben haben?
Mir würde ein Ja oder Nein schon reichen.
As an amateur, I think the answer is that sure, it's remotely possible.
But, that's terrible news, because then we will never be able to translate it.
There would be too much information loss; too much subjective parsing involved.
We wouldn't be able to tell if this is better or worse than any of the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., many applying similar techniques but with different languages and results.
We could only conclude that statistically, they're all overwhelmingly likely to all be wrong.
(30-05-2026, 05:44 PM)igajkgko Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As an amateur, I think the answer is that sure, it's remotely possible..
I'm not sure it's that simple. Any method that always converts a source language word to the same Voynichese representation should produce repeating word patterns that appear very underrepresented in the manuscript, compared to natural languages. It would take a highly bizarre text to produce something similar to the Voynich MS this way.
@ Thorsten You’ve already got statements from Stolfi, ReneZ, nablator, oshfdk (and indirectly from Tavie and Rafal), and from someone else who’s also from Germany and works with MHD (me).
Not to mention those who thanked the critics posts...
I’m definitely against it, too. No
Why?
Well, if you want to teach someone something and it takes them two years just to understand the system or application, you’re bound to get a “no.”
But there are abbreviations (like in Latin) that are very complicated, and you can’t read them that way. Yet that’s how it was taught at the university (e.g., in Vienna around 1500).
Now there will also be several people who understand it.
Your example has no reference, apart from a few words.
Bring me evidence and we’ll talk about it again.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Most of the feedback so far has been about my decryption process. This is perfectly legitimate, and many of the comments were helpful. Accordingly, I will concentrate more on the comprehensibility of the method and the presentation of evidence in the near future. Furthermore, I will try to present the rules according to which the best-before date words were selected more transparently.
However, my actual question was aimed at another point:
Regardless of whether my translations are correct, do you think it is possible that the author could have written the manuscript in this way?
In concrete terms:
• with abbreviated word forms,
• by renouncing part of the grammar,
• with individual abbreviations,
• as a kind of personal notation or memorization style,
• with the aim of making the content difficult for third parties to understand, but still being able to read fluently.
That's a different question than, "Is my decryption correct?"
At this point, I am expressly interested in the plausibility of the writing method, not the evaluation of my previous word assignments. For if even that were called into question, I would no longer need to comment on the matter here.
____
Die meisten bisherigen Rückmeldungen bezogen sich auf mein Entschlüsselungsverfahren. Das ist vollkommen legitim, und viele der Anmerkungen waren hilfreich. Entsprechend werde ich mich in der nächsten Zeit verstärkt auf die Nachvollziehbarkeit der Methode sowie die Beweisführung konzentrieren. Weiter werde ich versuchen die Regeln transparenter darzustellen, nach der die MHD-Wörter ausgewählt wurden.
Meine eigentliche Nachfrage zielte jedoch auf einen anderen Punkt ab:
Unabhängig davon, ob meine Übersetzungen korrekt sind – haltet ihr es grundsätzlich für möglich, dass der Verfasser das Manuskript auf diese Weise geschrieben haben könnte?
Also konkret:
• mit gekürzten Wortformen,
• unter Verzicht auf einen Teil der Grammatik,
• mit individuellen Abkürzungen,
• als eine Art persönlicher Notations- oder Merkstil,
• mit dem Ziel, den Inhalt für Dritte schwer verständlich zu machen, selbst aber weiterhin flüssig lesen zu können.
Das ist eine andere Frage als: „Ist meine Entschlüsselung richtig?“
Mich interessiert an dieser Stelle ausdrücklich die Plausibilität der Schreibmethode, nicht die Bewertung meiner bisherigen Wortzuordnungen. Denn wenn auch das in Frage gestellt werden würde, müsste ich mich hier nicht mehr dazu äußern.
[
attachment=15856]
Here's another example in Latin, just as I meant it.
From a professor at the University of Vienna around 1400.
I'm looking for something similar in German.
(31-05-2026, 06:37 AM)Thorsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Das ist eine andere Frage als: ...
Thorsten, please, could you limit your messages to English?
