The Voynich Ninja

(15-11-2016, 06:20 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You have words that add up to 7 on almost every line and yet you give each one a different word-value every time (serpent, the, said, tree, woman). How do you justify your choice of which word is meant by a particular number?

JKP,

I was following along with Genesis 3 and the welsh word, "Y", is a 7 for the English word, "The".

Stellar: if I understand correctly, your system involves looking at the pictures and finding a text that somewhat matches them. But how would you translate a full text page without any images?

Stellar,
So the paragraph just ends mid-sentence with "Serpent said to woman God"?
What about the second paragraph on that page, does the sentence continue there? Or what is your interpretation of that paragraph?
Also, in your reply to JKP you say you chose particular words because were just "following along with Genesis 3" but I'm sorry to say, that seems like pretty poor methodology.
How do you know the author might not just be referencing the first few words of Genesis 3 about serpents, to go on and talk about something else entirely, such as:
"Now, serpents are subtle beasts, but here's what I use to keep them out of my garden" or "Now, serpents are subtle beasts, but they're nothing compared to our local tax collectors"?

@Stellar
I find your system too complex to be used for such a long manuscript.

(16-11-2016, 11:01 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Stellar
I find your system too complex to be used for such a long manuscript.

The system isn't really that complex. You add up the letters to make a number and assign that to a word of the same number. Essentially a simple concept.

The problem is with re-interpreting something as subjective as a single number that can stand for thousands of words. I suppose in the sense of "decrypting" or reinterpreting it's unwieldy and somewhat complex, but mostly it's just unwieldy.


The problem with the way stellar is doing it is the decision about which language it's in and what it's about has been made before looking up words of the same number. Regardless of what it is, you are going to get a few words, sometimes even many words that "fit". But that doesn't mean any of them are the correct words (or even close to it) because another language or subject can yield just as many "valid" words (words of the same numerical value), which Thomas has already demonstrated with his language example.

If it is as simple as that, then each page has an infiite number of translations. It's a one way cipher.

@JKP
So, if I understand correctly, the manuscript was first written in plain language, then all the letters were summed, then replaced the words with other words with the same numeric value, then invented the letters and after all, copy the text on the parchment.

This is what I call too complex. It might work for a small post, but for a long manuscript?

(16-11-2016, 11:46 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If it is as simple as that, then each page has an infiite number of translations. It's a one way cipher.

That's basically how I see it, Koen. At least, in the way that stellar is interpreting the text, that's what it amounts to.

(16-11-2016, 12:02 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... then replaced the words with other words with the same numeric value, then invented the letters and after all, copy the text on the parchment.

This is what I call too complex.

I fully agree. It is straightforward to convert Voynichese words to numbers, but the author would have had to take the numbers (1-9) that he got out of a plain text, and convert these to several thousand different words.

The process how he would have done that is not at all described.

I see this as a typical consequence of the 'decoding approach'. People tend to concentrate on what would be the method to convert the MS text to plain text. For me, it is important to always try to keep in mind what the encoder would have done, i.e. the 'encoding approach'.