| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 478 online users.
» 12 Member(s) | 462 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Aga Tentakulus, Bluetoes101, Grove, LiviuV, Oocephalus, R. Sale, RadioFM
|
| Latest Threads |
My Solution – Abbreviated...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Thorsten
55 minutes ago
» Replies: 16
» Views: 574
|
A One-Page Ledger Method ...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Dunsel
3 hours ago
» Replies: 143
» Views: 5,658
|
No text, but a visual cod...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Antonio García Jiménez
5 hours ago
» Replies: 1,742
» Views: 1,166,803
|
Rosettes castle and Rocca...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: DG97EEB
6 hours ago
» Replies: 8
» Views: 291
|
Voynich is encrypted ENOC...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Radim Dobeš
6 hours ago
» Replies: 130
» Views: 15,093
|
Who is even still working...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: anyasophira
Today, 05:53 AM
» Replies: 20
» Views: 727
|
What is special about Voy...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Bernd
Yesterday, 10:56 PM
» Replies: 25
» Views: 24,232
|
Why and how the text coul...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoJo_Jost
Yesterday, 07:01 PM
» Replies: 228
» Views: 26,229
|
9 Radial Fully Mapped to ...
Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
Last Post: rikforto
Yesterday, 04:29 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 643
|
The Voynich as a rhythmic...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: nintus
25-05-2026, 10:32 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 1,144
|
|
|
| Some Notes on the Voynich Manuscript |
|
Posted by: Hazama Kaizuka - 15-12-2025, 07:38 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (1)
|
 |
These are some informal notes on how I personally think about the Voynich Manuscript.
Rather than attempting to read or interpret the text directly, I tend to focus on external and contextual factors such as structure, material aspects, page order, later additions, and signs of use or modification.
I am open to comments, but my working style is to first think things through in a self-consistent way, and then gradually adjust my views based on discussion and evidence.
I am not proposing a solution here—just sharing a way of thinking.
|
|
|
| First post from Japan: asking for guidance on presenting independent Voynich analysis |
|
Posted by: Hazama Kaizuka - 15-12-2025, 07:07 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (4)
|
|
Hello everyone,
This is my first post on Voynich Ninja, and also my first time posting on an overseas forum.
I apologize if my earlier attempt caused any confusion or inconvenience — I was not yet familiar with the customs here.
I have been working independently on an analysis of the Voynich Manuscript for some time.
The ideas and structure of the analysis are my own, based on direct examination of folios, layout, repetition, and functional relationships between sections.
That said, I should be transparent:
I sometimes use language tools (such as LLMs) only to help with English phrasing and formatting.
They are not used to generate hypotheses, interpretations, or conclusions.
Before presenting any concrete theory here, I would like to ask for guidance from more experienced members:
– What is the appropriate way to introduce an independent line of analysis?
– What level of evidence or presentation is expected to avoid misunderstandings?
– Are there recommended formats or prior examples I should study?
I respect the standards of this forum and would like to proceed carefully.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time.
こんにちは。
こちらは Voynich Ninja での初投稿であり、海外フォーラムへの投稿自体も初めてです。
先ほどの投稿で、もし混乱やご迷惑をおかけしていたら申し訳ありません。
この場での作法や慣習を十分に理解していませんでした。
私は、ヴォイニッチ手稿について、しばらくの間、個人的に独立した解析を行ってきました。
その内容は、フォリオの構成、レイアウト、反復、セクション間の機能的関係などを
実物に基づいて検討したもので、仮説や解釈の考えそのものは自分自身によるものです。
一方で、正直にお伝えすると、
英語表現や文章整形の補助として、言語ツール（LLM など）を使うことはあります。
ただし、それらは仮説の生成・解釈・結論には使用していません。
本格的な内容を投稿する前に、
このフォーラムに詳しい皆さんに、まず作法について助言をいただきたいと考えています。
・独自の解析を紹介する際の適切な進め方
・誤解を避けるために求められる提示レベル
・参考にすべき過去のスレッドや形式
このフォーラムの基準を尊重し、慎重に進めたいと思っています。
どのような助言でもいただければ幸いです。
よろしくお願いします。
|
|
|
|
| A structural analysis of the Voynich Manuscript as a functional document |
|
Posted by: Hazama Kaizuka - 15-12-2025, 05:35 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (6)
|
|
Part 1: Physical Loss and Structural Continuity in the Voynich Manuscript
(ヴォイニッチ手稿における物理的欠損と構造的一貫性)
English Summary
This post is Part 1 of a multi-part summary of a longer research work originally written in Japanese.
The English section provides a concise summary for discussion.
The full Japanese text is included below for transparency and precise reference.
This is a working hypothesis based on observable structural features of the manuscript.
It does not claim a definitive decipherment.
English Text
This chapter establishes the basic conditions under which the analysis of the Voynich Manuscript is conducted, focusing on the extent of surviving material and the portions that are demonstrably lost.
The Voynich Manuscript (Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, MS 408) preserves most of its overall structure.
However, it is also clear that several folios have been physically lost.
This study follows the folio numbering and organization established by Yale University and treats these losses as fixed premises for analysis.
Based on extant material and scholarly consensus, the following folios are confirmed to be physically missing:- f12
- f59
- f60
- f61
- f62
- f109
- f110
- f111
These folios are entirely lost, including both text and illustrations, and therefore cannot be reconstructed or restored.
The number of extant folios is 116, while the original manuscript is estimated to have consisted of approximately 124 folios.
Accordingly, the Voynich Manuscript should be regarded as a partially lost manuscript: its overall structure remains traceable, but critical gaps exist at key locations.
Importantly, the missing folios are not randomly distributed.
They are concentrated at structurally significant points within the manuscript:- f12: the opening of the Herbal section, corresponding to the loss of part of the initial plant set
- f59–62: a sectional boundary, marking the transition from the Herbal to the Cosmological section
- f109–111: the terminal portion, corresponding to the transition from the Recipes section to the Appendix
This pattern suggests that the losses occurred at structural turning points rather than as accidental or isolated events.
In this study, no attempt is made to speculate about or reconstruct the contents of the missing folios.
Instead, the analysis focuses on clarifying:- the relationships among the extant folios,
- the functional continuity between sections, and
- what specific connections are interrupted by the losses.
By making these discontinuities explicit, it becomes possible to demonstrate that a coherent overall structure remains intelligible even in the presence of missing material.
日本語本文（原文）
第0章 導入
1. 本章の目的
本章では、ヴォイニッチ手稿の解析を行うにあたり、
現存している資料の範囲と、史料的に欠損が確定している部分を整理する。
ヴォイニッチ手稿（Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library 所蔵、MS 408）は、
全体の構成がほぼ保存されている一方で、
いくつかのフォリオ（葉）が物理的に失われていることが確認されている。
本書では、イェール大学による整理・番号付与に基づき、
これらの欠損を前提条件として解析を進める。
2. 史料的に「欠損している」と確定している部分
以下は、現存資料および研究史上の合意により、
物理的に欠損していることが確定しているフォリオである。
■ フォリオ欠損（葉そのものが失われている）
f12
f59
f60
f61
f62
f109
f110
f111
これらのフォリオは、
本文・図像ともに完全に失われており、
復元や再構成は不可能である。
3. 現存状況の整理
現存フォリオ数：116
本来存在したと考えられるフォリオ数：約124前後
すなわち、
全体の構造は把握可能であるものの、
要所に欠損が存在する「部分欠落写本」である。
4. 欠損位置の機能的意味
欠損しているフォリオは、
いずれも手稿の構造上、意味のある位置に集中している。
欠損位置｜想定セクション｜構造上の意味
f12｜Herbal 冒頭部｜初期薬草セットの一部欠落
f59–62｜セクション境界｜Herbal → Cosmological の接続部
f109–111｜終盤部｜Recipes → Appendix（補遺）への移行部
この配置は、
偶発的な欠落というよりも、
構造上の節目が失われていることを示している。
5. 本書における欠損の扱い
本書では、
欠損部分を推測や想像で補うことは行わない。
代わりに、- 現存フォリオ同士の関係性
- セクション間の機能的連続性
- 欠損が「何を断ち切っているか」
を明示することで、
欠損を含んだままでも成立する全体構造を示すことを目的とする。
|
|
|
|
| Quire 13. Text first. Pictures after. |
|
Posted by: dashstofsk - 14-12-2025, 02:31 PM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (16)
|
 |
Has it ever been discussed that in quire 13 it seems that the pictures might have been done after the text had been written? The writer left spaces for the drawings to be added later? And all the tubes, ponds and flower pot things were then sized to fit the available space? Here is some evidence.
- f79r and f79v. The text margin is straight and does not flow around the contours of the pictures.
- f81r. Space had been left on the right of the page for drawings that were never made. There wasn't enough space at the top to fully draw the bath tub thing that was intended. The bath tub at the bottom has also not been completed. Perhaps the writer just got annoyed with himself and abandoned this page.
- f84v. The text on the right does not align with the bulk of the text. If text came last then it would have aligned. So it looks like that text was added after the drawings were done, and these drawings after the main text was done.
- f75r. If drawings came first then it is unlikely the first drawing would have been done slanty.
- f82v and other pages. The drawings on the right hand sides were done cramped. Had they been done first they would have commanded more space and the writing would have stopped short.
|
|
|
|
| Functional Reconstruction of the Voynich Manuscript as a Modular Medical System (DOI- |
|
Posted by: juananAI - 13-12-2025, 10:03 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (3)
|
|
Hello everyone,
I would like to share a recently completed research project on the Voynich Manuscript (Beinecke MS 408), now formally published with DOI, which proposes a non-linguistic, functional reconstruction of the manuscript as a modular medical system rather than a narrative or literary text.
The central hypothesis of the study is that the Voynich Manuscript operates as a 15th-century professional vademecum: a structured expert system integrating diagnosis, materia medica, and therapeutic protocols. Instead of pursuing phonetic or linguistic decipherment, the research focuses on structural engineering, internal consistency, and functional correlations between the manuscript’s sections.
The analysis treats the manuscript as an operational system in which different sections interact through a defined workflow, rather than as isolated or symbolic components.
Key contributions of the study include:
• Identification of a relational workflow linking diagnosis (zodiacal and anatomical sections), ingredients (herbal folios), and preparation/execution protocols (recipe section).
• Proposal of a binary pharmaceutical code based on recurring stars, containers, and humoral logic (hot/dry vs. cold/wet), consistently applied across multiple sections.
• Evidence for rigid syntactic templates in the recipe text, supporting the interpretation of the script as technical notation or procedural encoding rather than natural language prose.
• Functional reconstruction of the final recipe section (folios 103r–116v), organized according to the medieval anatomical principle a capite ad calcem, and consistent with contemporary medical traditions such as Salernitan humoral theory.
The full research is openly available here:
DOI: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Figshare (open access): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In addition, I have prepared a short explanatory video that summarizes the methodology and main structural findings. This video is intended solely as a visual aid to the published paper, not as a substitute for the formal analysis.
I am sharing this work here for critical discussion and feedback, particularly regarding the proposed structural model, its internal consistency, and its compatibility with known late-medieval medical and pharmacological practices.
Best regards,
Juanan
|
|
|
|
| Bifolio as a functional unit? |
|
Posted by: Bernd - 13-12-2025, 12:32 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (32)
|
|
Assuming the VM originally existed as a stack of loose bifolia, has it ever been tested if there are textual similarities within a bifolio (4 pages on the same vellum sheet)? I'm aware the sample size is probably too small for proper statistics but it would be interesting to see if there are patterns that link the text on a bifolio compared to single pages.
|
|
|
|
Hidden animals in the roots |
|
Posted by: Rafal - 13-12-2025, 12:16 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (26)
|
|
Forgive me if it was discussed before but I haven't seen a global thread about it, just some discussions about individual pictures.
Several times it was suggested that there are hidden animals and other creatures in the plant roots. Not in all roots but in several ones.
I browsed the manuscript and thought about it myself and came to this:
Of course there is such thing as pareidolia. Let's quote a classic philosopher:
“There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object, those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice or good- will to every thing, that hurts or pleases us.”
David Hume
So are these animals there or are these just quirks of our brains?
I will tell you my opinion. For me it's too much to be a random coincidence. These animals are real and intentional.
I am trying to make a poll to see your opinions.
And if there are animals indeed, what are the implications?
One quite obvious one to me is that the artist wasn't copying some herbal faithfully but rather freestyling and improvising.
Another one is that at least some plants are imaginary.
And there is a question - why was he doing it? Just for fun (entirely possible for me) or could there be something deeper behind it?
|
|
|
|
| Working my way to a semantic word analysis |
|
Posted by: mxv456 - 12-12-2025, 01:51 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (12)
|
|
Hey folks,
I've been binging Koen's videos on Youtube over the last week, great stuff!
Obviously that means I'm a Voynich novice, but I did use computational linguistics during my PhD at the MPI in Nijmegen, Netherlands, so I couldn't help but dig my fingers into the data :)
I'm not claiming any novelty but I haven't seen the different analysis steps put together in one place so I figured I might as well publish it here. (However, I do think in the end, I have some interesting results that I didn't see anywhere else... but more about this below and in the next post.)
I put the data, scripts and a small analysis report on a dedicated Github repository, if somebody wants to have a deeper look: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
My main idea for this round is to perform an TF-IDF analysis. This is a statistical tool where you count how often words occur over the whole text, vs the individual text segments (pages). With this method, one can (approximately) distinguish "content words" from "function words". Content words are those that are specific to a particular topic, like "Voynich" or "Quantum", while function words are words that show up everywhere, like "the", "of", "and", etc. I think it would be tantalizing to produce a list of Voynich words, where we can guess, from section and illustration cues, what they might mean, given where they show up. (Although I don't think it would bring us closer to deciphering the text, it would be fun.)
Down the line, maybe I have time to produce a visual tool where people can explore how words cluster in certain portions of the text. Not quite as fancy as the amazing tool on voynichese.com but in the same spirit.
I'm currently getting into working with LLMs (building them, not talking to Chat GPT) and I am very curious if one can use these tools to identify semantic clusters of Voynich words. Tbd.
I obviously haven't read everything there is on Voynich, but I did my best to go through voynich.nu and Bowern and Lindemann (2020) as well as the latest and pinned posts on this forum, to get a base understanding what's commonly known and what's currently under discussion. I'm looking forward to learn more from you.
I want to start by stating my base preconceptions/assumptions when I went into the analysis, as well as some questions that maybe you can help me with.
Assumptions:
1. The text is real in the sense that somebody in the 15th century wrote something down to communicate information to somebody else.
2. The transcription is reasonably good and conveys the textual content of the VMS to an overwhelming degree, so we can base an analysis on it.
3. The words are words in the sense that they can, through translation, combination, compression, augmentation by auxiliary information, or some other process, be rendered into a language that someone at some time spoke. If there is a cipher, it did not jumble words by moving word boundaries or similar shenanigans.
4. Letters are only meaningful with regards to the manuscript itself. They cannot be identified in a one-to-one manner with any language.
5. The manuscript was written by several scribes/authors, possibly at different times, possibly without knowing each other. The known separations are Currier A and B as well as the 5 Hands (Davis, Lisa Fagin. 2020).
6. There is no hope of me ever decrypting the text by myself since I have none of the necessary skills to actually understand any language that the authors spoke, even less the manuscript itself.
Questions:
1. The whole analysis is based on IT2a-n.txt from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Is this the correct choice? As far as I understand, it's a version of the TT transcription, but I don't know what the state of the art is. I noticed that the transcription used on voynichese.com is different and in some places more complete, but I don't know.
2. How is the interaction between "fan groups" like this one and the academic community? From what I saw in the videos, there is a fairly good collaboration, but I still wonder. I know that for some topics that garner so much public interest, there can be a lot of tension.
3. I had trouble finding a "definitive" distinction of pages into Currier A and B. I don't know if that's because it is not fully defined, if there is disagreement or if I just didn't look at the right places.
Base results:
Before we get to the good stuff, I want to post the base analysis as a sanity check but also so they are all in one spot. As I said, these are all well known but it's good for me to see the data myself, so maybe also for others.
I split up all the analysis steps by Currier A and B. Going in, I did not have any idea how close both languages are. My initial assumption was actually that they are as different as German and Latin. These stats helped me understand it better.
[EDIT: I made a mistake in my Currier A/B separation for these plots. Corrected plots in my reply on page 2.]
1. The word length plots for Currier A and B with the distributions for 4 reference languages. (I just chose 4 languages that were easily accessible to me.)
![[Image: word_length_stats.png?raw=true]](https://github.com/Marvel4U/Voynich_semantic_exploration/blob/master/plots/word_length_stats.png?raw=true)
2. The known Zipf distribution of word frequencies with reference languages
![[Image: Zipf_stats.png?raw=true]](https://github.com/Marvel4U/Voynich_semantic_exploration/blob/master/plots/Zipf_stats.png?raw=true)
3. Bigram heatmap.
This one was interesting to me because it shows a very close correspondence between Currier A and B. I expected a much bigger variation.
![[Image: bigram_heatmap_a_b.png]](https://github.com/Marvel4U/Voynich_semantic_exploration/raw/master/plots/bigram_heatmap_a_b.png)
As a reference looked at the bigram statistics of the reference languages and one can see that they vary much much more from each other, compared to the currier A and B.
![[Image: bigram_heatmap_ref_shared.png]](https://github.com/Marvel4U/Voynich_semantic_exploration/raw/master/plots/bigram_heatmap_ref_shared.png)
4. Word start and end bigrams/trigrams
The bigrams and word-initial trigrams did not show that much irregularity but the word-end trigrams clearly shows the famous -edy ending for Currier B
![[Image: word_end_trigrams_a_b.png]](https://github.com/Marvel4U/Voynich_semantic_exploration/raw/master/plots/word_end_trigrams_a_b.png)
What did surprise me is that the -edy ending is also among the most common endings in the Currier A script. From what I read and saw, I assumed that it is almost exclusive to the Currier B. Does that mean that I (a) simply misunderstood or (b) chose the wrong page split between currier A and B?
My current split is defined by the code below. Input is very welcome.
Code: CURRIER_A_RANGES = [("f1r", "f24v"), ("f31r", "f31v"), ("f88r", "f90v1"), ("f100r1", "f116r"), ]
CURRIER_A_SINGLES = ["f25r", "f25v", "f32r", "f32v", "f33r", "f34r", "f34v", "f67r2", "f67v1", "f67v2", "f91v"]
CURRIER_B_RANGES = [ ("f26r", "f30v"), ("f35r", "f39v"), ("f75r", "f84v"), ("f93r", "f96v"), ]
CURRIER_B_SINGLES = ["f68r1", "f68r2", "f68v1", "f68v2"]
I'll leave it at that for now. I'm curious how the interaction in the community here works and if I'll hear from anybody. I'm still preparing the plots for the TF-IDF analysis, as I said, I actually think they are quite interesting. I will add them as reply when I'm done.
Until then, cheerio,
Marvin.
|
|
|
|
|