I have completed a linguistic analysis of the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. marginalia based on several years of work.
Findings (very brief):
- script and phonology indicate a Central Bavarian Dialect (15th century)
- numerous Latin pharmaceutical abbreviations could be resolved
- The text reads as an ointment recipe, it is not magical
- The two encoded words in "Voynichese" were resolved and fit the recipe context (not a spell)
- Linguistic interference shows the scribe wrote in Central Bavarian with Latin abbreviations
but was not a native German Speaker
- Previously unnoticed "wrong" word boundaries (e.g. anchiton > an/
c / hi / ton > an Zeh hin tun > apply to toe) were corrected and now yields a coherent context
Full analysis: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Feedback is welcome. Thank you for your interest.
Why, unlike the rest of the manuscript, did the author suddenly switch to German?
Are there any examples of using such abbreviations?
Why is the text written in a way that requires us to separate the words (how anchiton)?
Are you sure you can accurately decipher aror shey?
In general, this seems plausible in the context of a medical book/herb book. However, it would be worth explaining why this should be the case.
P.S. Apparently, @JoJo_Jost was right about Bavarian...
Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.
However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) or: mo vix mo = mollire "erweichen" (melt) und VIX = V/X Mintutes = 5 / 10 Minutes.
Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....
I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything
(21-06-2026, 09:38 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.
However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) mo vix? mo = mollire vix = wax.
Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....
I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything
By the way, there are problems even with reading text on f17r. Even if we accept this as true, the meaning of this text on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is not particularly clear in this form. I believe that the combination of the word poxleber and crosses suggests a magical rather than a medicinal meaning.
And I would also like to know why the author shortened the words so much...
P.S. Of course, it's off-topic, but I had a theory that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. were not written by the author, but by someone who received the manuscript from the author. This person might have known more about the manuscript and attempted to decipher it. It's possible that You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. represents an unsuccessful attempt at deciphering the manuscript (it's possible that the recipe).
(21-06-2026, 09:50 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, there are problems even with reading text on f17r. Even if we accept this as true, the meaning of this text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not particularly clear in this form. I believe that the combination of the word poxleber and crosses suggests a magical rather than a medicinal meaning.
And I would also like to know why the author shortened the words so much...
P.S. Of course, it's off-topic, but I had a theory that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were not written by the author, but by someone who received the manuscript from the author. This person might have known more about the manuscript and attempted to decipher it. It's possible that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents an unsuccessful attempt at deciphering the manuscript (it's possible that the recipe).
Yes, all of that is possible. Including Stolfi's theory that, after the work was “destroyed” by water stains on both pages, someone else tried to restore the damaged text... etc.
But “poxleber” isn't the only indication of Bavarian. The phrases “so nim” and “mich” (f 116) are typical Bavarian/German words.
(21-06-2026, 09:38 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.
However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) or: mo vix mo = mollire "erweichen" (melt) und VIX = V/X Mintutes = 5 / 10 Minutes.
Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....
I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything ;
Hi, thanks for your comment. It was common to write medical terms in Latin. The author wrote a short, quick note probably for an assistant. "atzia" has the meaning of let the substance rest or stir slightly until it gets thickly. A common expression in producing ointments. An c hi ton = an Zeh hi ton = standard German "an Zeh hin tun". It is not far fetched but very logical in a recipe.
(21-06-2026, 09:38 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.
However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) or: mo vix mo = mollire "erweichen" (melt) und VIX = V/X Mintutes = 5 / 10 Minutes.
Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....
I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything
Hello, thanks for your comment. I explained clearly in my study that the gothic cursive character "a" was misread as "m". Moreover there are interference features that point to a
scribe who wrote in a language that was foreign to him and therefore uncertain in spelling.
(21-06-2026, 09:50 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (21-06-2026, 09:38 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since the word “Poxleber” was found in an Austrian sermon, I believe it’s highly likely that the marginal notes are Bavarian.
However, reading “mchiton” as “anchiton” has already been discussed; yet interpreting it as “anchiton” = a c hi ton = “an zeh hin tun” and “oladabas” = “als a bas(in)” = “alles ein basin”- in short, “an zeh hin tun alles ein basin” (a toe do in, everything a basin) - requires a high degree of eisegesis. Especially since this sentence doesn’t make any sense at all without heavy interpretation (eisegesis), and other “interpretations” also seem rather far-fetched to me - since they require a high degree of interpretation. Another example: atzia = atzen (to etch) mo vix? mo = mollire vix = wax.
Especially turning the Voynichese into Latin abbreviations - difficult....
I, for one, am not convinced. But of course, that doesn’t mean anything
By the way, there are problems even with reading text on f17r. Even if we accept this as true, the meaning of this text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not particularly clear in this form. I believe that the combination of the word poxleber and crosses suggests a magical rather than a medicinal meaning.
And I would also like to know why the author shortened the words so much...
P.S. Of course, it's off-topic, but I had a theory that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were not written by the author, but by someone who received the manuscript from the author. This person might have known more about the manuscript and attempted to decipher it. It's possible that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents an unsuccessful attempt at deciphering the manuscript (it's possible that the recipe).
Hi, thank you for your question. Bocksleber = poxleber = liver of a billy goat. Liver was a common ingredient of medieval medicine. I explained that the "crosses" simply are addition signs to note which ingredients have to be added and which production steps to be carried out next. I could not find any trace of a magical content however, it is clearly a recipe with ingredients as willow bark, wax, potash, quick lime. I had these lines checked by the Head of the Austrian Chamber of Pharmacy Prof. Beba and he confirmed the plausibility of it. I reproduced this ointment successfully.
Jojo: about the attestations of poxleber, let's keep our facts straight:
"Poxleber" was not found in an Austrian sermon. The sermon complains about pox-swearing in general but does not mention the example of "leber".
"Poxleber" has been found only once as an extremely rare spelling variation of the common "pocksleber" in a ca. 1500 law of the city of Kitzbuhel (Tyrol). Here, it is nothing more than a cut of meat, the liver of the male goat.
"Poxleber" has been found a few times in the work of Hans Sachs, as extremely vulgar curses uttered by peasants in his ca. 1550 carnival plays. Today's words with the same impact would be of a sexual nature, like motherf*cker or c*cks*cker. Anyone who for some reason still wishes to champion this reading should keep that in mind. It's not as mild as "goddammit" sounds today, which is why it's only written down 100 years after the VM was made, in carnivalesque contexts.