| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 593 online users.
» 12 Member(s) | 574 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yandex, eggyk, Grove, JustAnotherTheory, ololololo, Pointless.., Radim Dobeš, Rafal
|
|
|
| The structure of the Voynich text and how it may be generated |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 01-04-2026, 12:16 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (59)
|
 |
Most discussions about the Voynich already agree on a few basic points: the text is not random, similar words tend to appear near each other, and position within the line matters. What is less clear is how this structure is actually generated.
I have been working in a pipeline that lets me analyze the structure of the MS. The goal of this analysis was not to describe patterns, but to test concrete generative hypotheses against the data. The question was always the same: if this were the real mechanism, would it reproduce what we observe? Running different models through the same pipeline makes it possible to discard entire classes of explanations, not just speculate about them.
| Hypothesis | Expected behavior | Observed failure |
| Random / weak structure | No stable local similarity or positional effects | Strong clustering and positional patterns persist |
| Sequential (Markov-like) | Next token predictable from previous ones | Bigram/HMM models add little or collapse |
| Copy–modify (parent-based) | Clear local derivations, strong nearest neighbor | Generative models produce too much similarity |
| Single dominant parent | One best local candidate per token | Multiple candidates with similar scores, no clear winner |
The important point is not just that these models fail, but how they fail. Copy-and-modify mechanisms generate too much similarity, producing tight chains of derived forms that are not observed in the real text. Sequential models fail in the opposite direction, missing most of the structure entirely. The idea of a single dominant parent breaks down because the local neighborhood is too ambiguous: for most tokens, several nearby forms are equally plausible, with no clear winner. These are structural mismatches, not minor errors, and they rule out a large class of simple generative explanations.
At the same time, some effects are very robust. Local similarity is real and strong: words share substrings and cluster in form space. Position within the line has a clear impact on length, prefixes, and suffixes. But these signals do not translate into a simple mechanism where one word determines the next. Token-level models struggle precisely because the system is not organized primarily as a chain of local decisions.
The structure becomes clearer when moving to the level of the full line. If lines are represented as whole objects, using their internal properties (number of tokens, length distributions, entropy, positional patterns), they fall into a small number of latent types. These types are not imposed manually, but learned directly from the text. They correspond broadly to different functional roles, but also reveal variation within them. These data-driven line types also show persistence across consecutive lines, suggesting that the manuscript is organized as sequences of line-level states, not just as a stream of loosely connected tokens.
- The text is not governed by simple sequential rules. Token-to-token models fail to capture the structure, even when extended beyond basic Markov assumptions.
- It is not generated by copy-and–modify or parent-based derivation. These mechanisms overproduce similarity and impose chains that are not present in the data.
- There is no single dominant local source for most tokens. The local neighborhood is too ambiguous, with multiple equally plausible candidates.
- The strongest and most stable structure appears at the level of the full line. Lines form a small number of latent types with distinct formal profiles and non-random sequencing.
A useful way to think about it is the following:
- The line type defines a space of possible forms.
- The local context restricts this space further by favoring forms that are compatible with nearby words.
- But within that constrained space, the final choice is weakly determined. Many candidates are acceptable, and no single one is strongly preferred.
This explains why local similarity is strong but does not translate into clear parent-child relationships, and why token-level models struggle while line-level structure is much more stable.
With this analysis I try not to show that the Voynich is structured, which was already suspected, but to narrow down the class of mechanisms that can plausibly generate it. Simple sequential models and naive copy-and-modify processes do not fit. Models that operate at the level of line-level states, combined with a local compatibility field and weak selection within that field, are much more consistent with the data.
|
|
|
| A thought |
|
Posted by: Tessa9 - 01-04-2026, 03:39 AM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (3)
|
|
This might be a dumb question, but does anyone have an answer?
I was just thinking, is Voynichese a character system or a letter system? Sorry if my terms aren't correct, but here's an example
In languages like Latin, English, German, etc., we have the alphabet (ABCD...), such that it creates letters, whereas in languages like Chinese, Japanese, Thai, etc., there is one character or more (你, 我, 对。。。) for one word.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense; I can elaborate, but if you understand and can give me an answer, please do. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
| Memory Palace Theory |
|
Posted by: Ace369 - 31-03-2026, 01:49 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (2)
|
|
Disclaimer that I used AI for grammar and calculate frequency of certain symbols so numbers might not be accurate, proposal is mostly just the idea.
Most attempts to decode the Voynich assume it's a language, encrypted, unknown, or fabricated. But what if that assumption is the problem?
Here's an alternative framing worth considering: the Voynich might be a correspondence notation system, a structured tool for mapping relationships between three domains of knowledge rather than a text meant to be read linearly. Not a book. A paper computer.
The intellectual context
Medieval and Renaissance natural philosophy was built on a tripartite model of reality, the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Human. Everything in one domain was believed to have a correspondent in the others. Specific plants corresponded to specific planets, which corresponded to specific body parts and humors. This wasn't metaphor, it was the operating model of reality for educated people of that era.
The three major sections of the Voynich map suspiciously cleanly onto this framework:- Herbal → Terrestrial (plants, material substances)
- Astronomical → Celestial (stars, cycles, time)
- Balneological → Human (body, fluids, vitality)
The manuscript wouldn't be three separate topics — it would be one unified system expressed through three lenses.
What the data suggests
Running statistical analysis on the IVTFF transliteration corpus produces some structural patterns that are hard to explain with cipher or natural language theory:
Labels behave like unique identifiers, not words
Across every section — pharmaceutical jars, astronomical stars, zodiac nymphs, herbal plants — label positions show vocabulary uniqueness ratios of 0.82–0.91. Paragraph text sits at 0.22–0.41. Labels aren't words being used repeatedly. They're names. Node identifiers in a system.
The qok- prefix behaves like a relational operator
Base words appear as labels. The same words with qok- prefix appear in paragraph text. And crucially — qok- is almost entirely absent from pure label fields across every section.
This is consistent with qok- functioning as a correspondence prefix — something like "of/in/belonging to" — turning an identifier into a coordinate. "keedy" names a node. "qokeedy" locates something in relation to it.
Locus type predicts text structure perfectly
Labels, paragraph text, circular text, radial text — each has its own statistical fingerprint. Word length, vocabulary density, daiin frequency, qok- density all vary systematically by structural position. That's not a cipher. Ciphers scramble content, they don't architect it.
daiin density tracks domain, not grammar
If daiin were a function word like "the" it would distribute evenly. Instead it's densest in Herbal A (10–14%) and nearly absent from zodiac labels (1–2%). It appears to mark a specific coordinate axis that some sections invoke heavily and others barely at all.
The picture that emerges
The manuscript might be structured as follows:- Labels = unique node identifiers (names for things in the system)
- qok- + word = correspondence coordinate ("this node relates to this domain")
- daiin = primary axis marker (appears where the main correspondence axis is being invoked)
- Section vocabulary = different domains of the same underlying relational system
- Dense text pages = possibly the index or query interface, how you navigate the system
Under this reading, the "language" resists decipherment because it was never a language. It's a notation system — personal to its author, built for navigation not reading, and only meaningful to someone who already had the underlying correspondence model internalized.
The symbols aren't words waiting to be translated. They're addresses in a system whose map was always meant to be carried in the mind.
This is speculative — the framework fits but hasn't been formally tested against competing hypotheses. Posting here to see if the structural evidence holds up to scrutiny or if there are obvious gaps in the reading.
What does this community think. Has the memory palace / correspondence notation angle been seriously explored before?
|
|
|
|
| i,q,d,y are numbers in a cipher respectively 1,4,8,9 |
|
Posted by: oeesordy - 31-03-2026, 12:57 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (7)
|
 |
1,4,8,9 in voynich which is i,q,d and y are numbers
This is a mini cipher per word based on i,q,d and y, they are numbers.
Inside each is a tiny Latin anagram.
A) Start at last eva word "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in voynich manuscript,
count letters backwards 1 one from list at bottom: e becomes a, i becomes t, r becomes n, y becomes u. anangram
then Latin natu
backwards 1 each against eva frequency then check latin frequency lists,
for digit sum method , because 1 and 9 = 1
B) Next is word "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", because 1 + 1 is 2 and "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." is combined to get 2 with 9 then it = 2
This is a mini cipher per word based on i,q,d and y, they are numbers.
Inside each is a tiny Latin anagram.
If you have any questions let me know this is preliminary: The last word on the voynich manuscript is as "ary" on voychinese. Jason Davies looks like it could be "eiry".
eva-latin-english
eiry = eiry = natu = to be born, derive origin: count back 1
ain = ain = uno = one :count back 2
qol = qol = tue = behold, watch: forward 4, eva l is e in latin
chckhy =chckhy = dia = Godlike: back 9
chcthy = edi = declare:foward 9, eva ch is a in Latin
al = al = me =I: forward 8 eva l is e in Latin
This Latin sentence reads:
"Me edi, Dia, tue uno natu".
"I declare, Godlike, behold one to be born or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.".
Use Frequency List for counting forward or backward:
What locked me on to Latin was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." and its Latin. I suppose other languages could use the same word.
|
|
|
|
| Reconciling Millicent Sowerby's Chronology |
|
Posted by: asteckley - 31-03-2026, 12:22 AM - Forum: Provenance & history
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Almost all sources describe Wilfrid Voynich's acquisition of the manuscript somewhat ambiguously by stating it happened in "1911/1912". There are some documented references that are believed to refer to the manuscript that put the acquisition by Voynich specifically in 1912. But I am unclear how definitive those references are.
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.
She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year. December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop.
She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "
Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.)
Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff). This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.
On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)
Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?
|
|
|
|
| 22% of 38,000 vords |
|
Posted by: oeesordy - 28-03-2026, 06:28 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (6)
|
|
I was going to do a whole study using python, but it was easy to find this statistic at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The voynich is abnormal with a huge anomaly of 22% of initial vowel being only "o" of the first letter of a vord out 38,000 vords. Some say the voynich is 37,000 words so the % could be a little bit higher.
What does this suggest to me along with other signs from the text. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. word before and after test show the Voynich at 100 above 20 which is random and languages at 280-300. It is low entropy. No one has been able to decode it from substitution that is reproducible. I believe that the first letter of the vord being a vowel is 22-23% of the text words. There are those that say it is meaningless, but the voynich does have structure; therefore the conlang angle. As for a language or a cipher that will present itself reproducible the same anywhere from substitution, I would find this hard to believe. You will always eventually output unintelligible syntax.
This suggests to me that the Voynich is an attempt at rules based conlang and a messy one maybe. If you have a comment against the conlang angle and believe it behave more like a known language. What evidence against this do you have to support your idea?
Here is a reference for English along with letter placements in words
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Position Within Word
"t" was the highest with 15.9%. and that is not a vowel. "a" was 11.68%
If you agree with me then you might also feel like I do that the meaning was lost with the people involved. So we may only get subjective feelings from Voynich on its meaning from imagery. The text may elude us.
|
|
|
|
| If it's a medicinal why the lack of accuracy? |
|
Posted by: oeesordy - 25-03-2026, 10:33 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (15)
|
|
I was perusing the voynich the other day when I came across what I call the folio, "Garden of Eden" you know the snake folio. It's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I'm so wish washy on the Voynich, I know, does it have meaning, maybe not? Anyway it suddenly dawned on me when I looked at the flowers coming from one the Calyx's and I saw 3 and the Calyx had one stem. I looked this up and its impossible unless I'm mistaken. It does attempt to have what looks like 3 red, but no stems, except one for 3 flowers on a Calyx. The main Calyx has the stem with one flower, that's how it supposed to work.
I understand if this was a secret code with instructions for prohibited information and valuable information of the time; I do think the author or authors was involved with the pictures would at least maintain this accuracy. So why would there be fake flowers in there for a medicinal, in a mix among what looks like genuine plants? The telling feature I think is that well this is rushed and it might not be a medicinal? Could the text be rushed too? Am I implying that it does not mean anything if the text is rushed, no. However, if you are making up plants, could you make up text, yes. Does that have meaning to the person it could, but would it be common to the public maybe not.
The fact that this flower is made up, could mean the text is made up. Yes the script is invented, but what I'm saying is that this might not follow a language, it could be an invented language. It does have structure and by now humans should have found a language for the Voynich. So if it is an invented language how does one interpret the grammar and try to at least substitute a language as a model to make any sense from it. The voynich grammar from vord positions should show the model language. If this cannot be found then we may very well have something that only has meaning to the author or authors. This means the public was never meant to see the Voynich.
|
|
|
|
|
)