(12-03-2026, 04:49 PM)quimqu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you think that, from the perspective of text analysis, it is still possible to go further?
It is possible to go much further on text analysis. I have my solution that I will never share on this forum because the vultures will rip it apart. I can produce clean text across the entire book. Whether it is an AI hallucination or not doesn't really matter to me. Every day I get more value out of the book and learn even more about it and that is all that is important to me.
This paper presents a cautious statistical and morphological analysis proposing — but not claiming to confirm — that the Voynich Manuscript's writing system may exhibit structural features consistent with Andalusian Arabic.
──────────────────────────────
WHAT THIS PAPER CLAIMS AND DOES NOT CLAIM
──────────────────────────────
This paper does not claim to have deciphered the manuscript. All analysis is organized into three strictly separated layers:
Layer 1 — Objective measurements (independently verifiable, no interpretation required)
Layer 2 — Structural patterns of uncertain significance
Layer 3 — Speculative hypotheses, clearly labeled at every point
Important methodological note: EVA is a glyph-labeling system, not a phonetic transcription. No argument in this paper claims that an EVA token matches an Arabic word because they look or sound similar. All such phonetic reasoning is explicitly avoided.
──────────────────────────────
LAYER 1: OBJECTIVE CORPUS STATISTICS (voynich.nu IT2a-n, N = 36,473 tokens)
──────────────────────────────
• Total tokens: 36,473 | Unique word types: 8,461 | Type/token ratio: 0.232
• Index of Coincidence: 0.0030 (below English ≈ 0.067, Arabic ≈ 0.076, random ≈ 0.038)
• Suffix '-dy': 1,125 word types = 17.4% of all tokens
• Suffix '-edy': 424 word types = 11.2% of all tokens
• Suffix '-iin': 11.3% of all tokens
• 'qok-' prefix family: 269 word types = 8.4% of all tokens
• Folios analyzed: 225 (all sections)
These figures are directly verifiable. No interpretation is attached to them.
This prefix-plus-variable-root architecture is CONSISTENT WITH Semitic root-and-pattern morphology — but is equally consistent with a cipher convention or transcription artifact. No determination is made here.
──────────────────────────────
LAYER 3: SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESES (low confidence — offered for community testing)
──────────────────────────────
Nine proposed EVA-to-Arabic mappings, all marked LOW CONFIDENCE:
EVA 'ol' → al- (ال) definite article
EVA 'or' → aw (أو) or/conjunction
EVA 'dy' → dhi (ذي) which/that
EVA 'cthom' → thum (ثوم) garlic
EVA 'chor' → buraq (بورق) borax
EVA 'otal' → ratl (رطل) weight unit
EVA 'qol' → qala (قال) stated/cited
EVA 'shol' → sahl (سهل) easy/simple
EVA 'cthy' → kathir (كثير) many/multiple
──────────────────────────────
FOUR CANDIDATE DECODED LINES
──────────────────────────────
Applying the above mappings to four folios produces these candidate readings:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line 12 | or.shol.cthom.chor.cthy → "Or: simply — garlic with borax — many doses"
Consistent with: Ibn al-Baytar, Al-Mughni Ch.7; Abu l-Ala Zuhr, Mujarrabat Frag.2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line 6 | ychtaiin.chor.cthom.otal.dam → "Prescribe: borax — garlic — one ratl — [for blood]"
Consistent with: Ibn Wafid, Al-Adwiya al-Mufradah; Ibn al-Baytar Ch.6
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line 9 | oeeo.dal.chor.cthom → "And evidence/guide: borax with garlic"
Consistent with: Abu l-Ala Zuhr, Mujarrabat; Ibn al-Baytar Ch.15
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line 19 | qol.shey → "The authority stated" (standard citation formula)
Consistent with: Ibn al-Baytar, Al-Jami' (formula used 100+ times)
Note: Consistency with medieval sources confirms only internal coherence, not correctness. This is acknowledged as circular if used as proof. True confirmation requires an independent researcher to arrive at the same readings from the raw glyphs without prior knowledge of the proposed mappings.
──────────────────────────────
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY CONFIRM THIS HYPOTHESIS
──────────────────────────────
1. A qualified Andalusian Arabic paleographer examining the glyphs directly (not EVA) and proposing correspondences independently
2. Formal entropy comparison of Voynich word structure against an Andalusian Arabic corpus
3. Detection of structural parallelism with a known Arabic source text
4. Empirical baseline: 10,000 permutation trials to calculate the actual chance rate
5. Expert assessment of whether the proposed grammar skeleton matches attested Andalusian Arabic morphology
Until these are addressed, this should be treated as a structured research proposal, not a finding.
──────────────────────────────
AI USE DISCLOSURE
──────────────────────────────
This research was conducted with assistance from Claude (Anthropic) and Grok for corpus analysis and text drafting. Research direction, source selection, and analytical framework were provided by the author. No human peer review was conducted prior to posting.
Full paper (APA 7 format) attached as PDF.
Feedback from Arabic linguists and Voynich specialists especially welcome.
No known language produces a 140 to 167 prefixes for its most frequent word. The word would not make sense. If you disagree show the list of words with the language and the prefix in front of that word and it probably does not have to be the most frequent word.
ich bin neu hier und versuche gerade, die EVA-Transkription überhaupt erst zu verstehen.
Mir ist dabei eine kleine Sache aufgefallen, bei der ich unsicher bin:
In der Sequenz „qokedy daiin shol“ habe ich den Eindruck, dass die Wörter eventuell unterschiedliche Rollen haben könnten (z. B. etwas wie Prozess / Objekt / Ergebnis) – aber ich weiß nicht, ob ich mir da etwas einbilde.
Ist so ein strukturelles Lesen hier überhaupt sinnvoll, oder ist das ein typischer Denkfehler?
I would like to present a structured approach I have been working on regarding recurring patterns in the Voynich manuscript.
My focus is not on a full linguistic translation, but on identifying stable, high-frequency token clusters and analyzing their functional role within the text.
The method is based on a fixed mapping of recurring sequences, applied consistently without interpretative adjustments.
When applying this approach, the text begins to show repeatable procedural structures, often following patterns such as:
substance → process → transformation
I am fully aware that many approaches to the Voynich manuscript have failed or overreached.
For that reason, I am not presenting a solution, but a model that can be tested, challenged, and potentially falsified.
I would be interested in your perspective on:
- the stability of recurring glyph clusters
- whether such a reduction approach is methodologically sound
- and how you would evaluate reproducibility in this context
If there is interest, I can provide concrete examples and mappings.
Would you be surprised if I told you that the order of the pages of the Voynich Manuscript does not matter. Each page forms its own entity, independent of the other pages.
Concordantiae caritatis
HS 151
Stiftsarchiv und Stiftsbibliothek Lilienfeld, Austria
mid 14th century
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As Koen posted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., this manuscript was highlighted by Volkhard Huth for containing two animals somewhat resembling the VM Scorpio. There's also crocodiles in a similar style.
But this manuscript also has far more interesting imagery.:
The overall composition of small roundels surrounding a large central one
Moon faces closely resembling the VM Cosmo section
Lots of figures pointing, including such with a beret like in VM You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Moses is frequently portrayed with the same red cap
Some are shown from behind which might have been the inspiration for VM You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Headdress closely resembling the VM Sagittarius crossbowman's
I am pleased to announce that the underlying system of the Voynich Manuscript (MS 408) has been successfully identified and decoded. Contrary to previous linguistic theories, the manuscript does not contain a "lost language," but rather a highly sophisticated Technical Index System based on the Latin Vulgate Bible.
The Discovery:
The decoding is based on a strict mathematical and clerical rule:
[Number-Index = Biblical Chapter] + [Character-Index = Initial letters of the Latin keyword].
Using the EvaT 2.0 (2025) character-accurate transcription, this "Vulgate-Index Grid" consistently yields coherent medical, botanical, and ritual instructions across all sections (Botany, Balneology, Cosmology). The decoded text describes exactly what is shown in the illustrations:
- Matthew 13 (Arbor/Granum/Lignum) for botanical structures and plant stems.
- Matthew 26 (Calicem/Chalice) for medicinal fluids and ritual basins.
- Matthew 8 & 9 (Tetigit/Dimittuntur/Ait) for healing protocols and purification.
- Psalms 36 (Fons) for water sources and resupply.
The Attached PDF Document Contains:
1. The Master Index Grid: The complete list of numbers and character pairs linked to their specific biblical sources.
2. Step-by-Step Methodology: Instructions on how to reproduce the decoding on any given page.
3. Extensive Proofs: Multiple pages decoded line-by-line with exact biblical citations (Chapter:Verse).
This system is reproducible, falsifiable, and statistically significant. It moves the conversation from subjective translation to objective data verification. I invite the community to verify the coordinates provided in the PDF using any standard Latin Vulgate.
The decoding is complete. The manuscript is a functional, ritualistic medical manual.
Link to the Full Decoding Protocol (PDF):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In a similar spirit to oshdfk's processed images, I have processed a few of the plant images in an attempt to see any hidden detailing, or to highlight what is visible to get a better idea of how it looked before the painting process. This focuses on green paint, so the leaves of the plants.
My hunch is that due to such an awful painting job, much of the original detail was lost. This has negatively influenced our opinion on the quality of the drawings, of course. Were they really as bad as they seem now?
f46v:
f87v:
f100r:
f100v-f101r 1-2:
f40v:
f8r:
A common theme between many of these are clearer leaf outlines and clearer leaf stems. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. benefits a lot from this and looks far more inricate than at first glance. Look at the stem that has carefully been drawn behind the spikes of the leaf in front! These look to me to be quite inricate, deliberate details (similar in quality to many of the later pages, the containers etc). It's possible that the darker green paint, or heavier applied green paint has completely removed the previously visible detailing.
Unfortunately, I don't know if further MSI would help in any way, as in every available MSI image, these details aren't really any better than seen here. For example, the MSI image for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. lacks these details completely. Perhaps a different wavelength would have different results?
On the other hand, the pages chosen for MSI analysis don't appear to be pages with any visible detail anyway, so maybe scans of other pages would actually be quite useful (sometime in the future).
