| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
Water, earth and air
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
1 hour ago
» Replies: 38
» Views: 7,389
|
Six onion-roof towers sup...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
2 hours ago
» Replies: 82
» Views: 4,481
|
Were the images drawn bef...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
2 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 64
|
Elephant in the Room Solu...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Koen G
Today, 09:05 AM
» Replies: 135
» Views: 6,738
|
Starred Parags: the last ...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: ReneZ
Today, 12:36 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 222
|
Folio reorder in the herb...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: ahalay-mahalay
Today, 12:35 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 82
|
Knight's Path, an upcomin...
Forum: Fiction, Comics, Films & Videos, Games & other Media
Last Post: bi3mw
Yesterday, 09:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 103
|
L. Rauwolf
Forum: Provenance & history
Last Post: nablator
Yesterday, 05:30 PM
» Replies: 50
» Views: 6,566
|
Distribution of Q-Q gaps ...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
Yesterday, 01:33 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 237
|
structural medical encodi...
Forum: The Slop Bucket
Last Post: Koen G
Yesterday, 09:51 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 117
|
|
|
| Six onion-roof towers supporting heavens |
|
Posted by: Jorge_Stolfi - 02-01-2026, 10:34 AM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (82)
|
 |
[Sorry of this has been asked before. I tried searching the site but came up with nothing]
The central figure on the Rosettes page (f85v2, fRos) shows six towers with "onion" roofs, apparently supporting the starry heavens.
Has anyone found similar imagery in manuscripts from 1400 or earlier? Or actual buildings with those features?
Towers just like those -- round, with ribbed onion roofs, topped with a tapered trumpet-shaped cone piercing a ball -- seem to be characteristic features of Medieval Russian Orthodox cathedrals, and their more recent "Revival" style. What was the geographic extent of that style? Did it reach Central Europe?
It seems that the Russian towers were usually built into the cathedral. The towers in the VMS, on the other hand, are free-standing, with characteristic "lobed swelling" at the base. Is there any parallel to those bases, n imagery or actual buildings?
All the best, --stolfi
|
|
|
| Cataloging manuscripts depicting women that look "Voynich-y" |
|
Posted by: stopsquark - 02-01-2026, 06:54 AM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (7)
|
 |
Specifically, I'm looking for depictions of women that have red cheeks, attire or hairstyle similar to those in the MS, and/or facial/body structure depicted similarly as in the MS.
I've found a lot of good candidates in southern Germany, particularly in the Cod. Pal. Lat. fonds of the Vatican Library (which was originally the collection of Heidelberg).
I'm attaching pictures of two pretty strong resemblances. The first is Cod. Pal. Lat 1726, a "Mythological Miscellany" manuscript.
Note in particular the "nymph-like" lady in repose, together with doves that look kind of like the bird we see in the VMS:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And the heavenly squiggle clouds.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The posed people on the left hand pages also appear similar to the "Gemini" page of the VMS, which I believe someone (I think Koen?) has traced back to a possible link with manuscripts of the Wigelaf romance. But that's another post 
The other, Cod. Pal. Lat. 1709 is an miscellany manuscript that contains a lot of astronomical and mythological illustrations.
Here is one of the Biblical plagues:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(So maybe this is Moses and not a woman- but still, note the crown and cheeks)
Here is one depicting the influences of different planets:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
What other MSs like this have you found, and where are they from?[url=Google.com][/url]
|
|
|
|
| Back to the Future - page/paragraph initial words |
|
Posted by: Grove - 01-01-2026, 02:03 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (3)
|
|
I left the voynich conversation a quarter century ago or thereabouts. So, as if that was yesterday, here I am continuing about where I left off with page (and subsequently paragraph) initial words.
Transcription errors are very likely, but I do think the statistics generally do hold true when you look across the entire manuscript. The words below are among the ‘rare’ words unless you clip off the leading gallows, but I think there’s more to them.
f3v (bold below) is particularly intriguing with the first and third paragraph initial words being eerily similar to the way the second and fourth are structured.
I mixed up how I handled split gallows and word-adjacent words that might be prefixed by the first word. Using period or hyphen to join them. It’s pretty clear with long split gallows across several words. I included them as part of the paragraph or page initial words because I felt they were needed.
The rarity of these words doesn’t look quite as rare when only looking at paragraph initial words.
First 7 quires paragraph initial words:
Quire 1
Fychys ?odar ?ydain Cpho-shaiin
Kchys Potoy
Kydainy Kydain
Kaoiin Kchor
Tsheos Pcheol Tsheoarom Pcheoldom
Koaiin Tchor
Kodalchy Pydaiin
Pchaoiin Torchy
Kshody Tshy
Kocheor Tchody
Foar
Koar
Pchodaiin Ksholochey
Polyshy Kchor
Pshol Tshosp Ctho..cthey
Cthod.. soocth Pchar
——-
2
Tydlo Pshoain
Fochar Pchor
Pchocthy-shar Ycheor
Paiin Qotchy
Tshol Tchol
Polchody
Torshor Shorodo
Koair Foldaiin
Pchodaiin Soshy
Pdychodaiin
Tshor
Poror
Pocheody Tchor Toror
Pchraiin Pchocthy
——
3
Fshody Tchom Ksheo
Pchodol Kchor Sor Qoain Oal
Pdrairdy Tchor
Told Tolol
Pchor
Pochaiin Tod
Kdchody Pchocthy Fchodees
Faiis-ar Tshol
Pchor Ochofychy Fchokshy
Toldshy
Pololshy Pchaiin Kchol Kchol
Pysaiinor Fshor
Pydchdom Qolkody Tshol
Podairol Tshol
Porory
Tchodar Tochol Ksho
——
4
Fcholdy
Poeeaiin
Psheoky Fcho
Pchedar Pchdar Pchedy
Ksor Kchey
Fochof
Pchodar
Kshol Tshoiin Pchol
Poraiin Kcheol
Koaiin Kochor Qokaiin
Okchesy Opchol
Cthscthain oyshy
Keedey Tshokeody Tolshso
Podair Pcheeody
Fchaiin Fcho
Kcheodaiin Ksho
——
5
Tshdar
Tarar Tshdy
Pcheoepchy Tcheo
Kschdy Pchedar
Cthoo-r-choly-cthy Paiin
Parchor
Pchafdan Podaiin
Pcharosy Tchor
Tocphol Pchotchy Koiin
Kshody Qotor Todain
Tolor
Okchop
Tedochshd Pchdaiin Pchdar
Pdair Pardy
Pchey Ksheo
Pchedain Teeypchody Toees (and ‘title-word’ Pchedy)
——
6
Pshey.Kedealeey Shedey.polchedy
Pcheody (keeshdal?)
Stho-ofaiin-cthaihcthy Pcho Pydaiin
Tcho..cto..sheey Posheor
Tarodaiin Pshesy Pshdar
Pdsairy Tolkshdy Tarchor
Tshodpy Toy Pshy
Tsho Yokalod Tsheody
Pykydal Kolshol Tshol
Korary Qotol Yksheor
Pcheocphy Tedy Tshdy Pchdair
Pody
Pchair Folr
Psheot Pchodaiin
Pshdaiin
Pcheodchy Pchedar
——
7
Poshol Ksho Podaiin
Kshor Fchochor Qotcho
Psheor
Tchy
Tsholdchy
Poshody
Tdokchcfhy
Pchor Pcheol
Kodam
Tshor
Podaiin Korare
Pcheodar
Podaiin Tchedar
Kcheedchdy Okeed
Otchal-chchsty Tchoky
Kcheat Kchokchy
|
|
|
|
| Uncertain spaces as evidence of verbose glyph pairs |
|
Posted by: kckluge - 01-01-2026, 05:24 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- No Replies
|
|
Anyone who's been around the Ninja (or Voynich Mss. related discussions in general) is familiar with the existence of certain glyph pairs with unusually high frequencies which are significant contributors to the low conditional second-order entropy of the text. To pick an obvious example, here are the 10 most frequent glyphs following Currier 'O'/EVA 'o' in running text lines in ZL_ivtff_1b.txt converted to Currier:
kgram: OF OE OP OR O8 OB O2 OC OA OX
(EVA): ok ol ot or od op os oe oa ockh
Rank: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Count: 5620 5242 3244 2531 2035 519 382 322 257 179
REFreq: 0.2609 0.2434 0.1506 0.1175 0.0945 0.0241 0.0177 0.0150 0.0119 0.0083
RECmFrq: 1.0000 0.7391 0.4957 0.3451 0.2276 0.1331 0.1090 0.0912 0.0763 0.0644
Note the steep drop from OR (11.75%) and O8 (9.45%) to OB (2.41%) and O2 (1.77%).
If certain glyph pairs go together as a unit, uncertain spaces before and/or after may reflect an unconscious hesitation on the part of the scribe. Here are the 20 most frequent glyph pairs with an uncertain space after them:
kgram: OE, AR, OR, AE, CO, 89, C9, SO, AM, AT,
(EVA): ol, ar, or, al, eo, dy, ey, cho, aiin, air,
Rank: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Count: 387 207 181 165 121 101 96 58 55 51
REFreq: 0.2043 0.1093 0.0956 0.0871 0.0639 0.0533 0.0507 0.0306 0.0290 0.0269
RECmFrq: 1.0000 0.7957 0.6864 0.5908 0.5037 0.4398 0.3865 0.3358 0.3052 0.2761
kgram: S9, AN, 4O, P9, O2, F9, C8, ZO, OP, C2,
(EVA): chy, ain, qo, ty, os, ky, ed, sho, ot, es,
Rank: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Count: 34 25 24 20 20 19 19 18 14 14
REFreq: 0.0180 0.0132 0.0127 0.0106 0.0106 0.0100 0.0100 0.0095 0.0074 0.0074
RECmFrq: 0.2492 0.2313 0.2181 0.2054 0.1948 0.1843 0.1742 0.1642 0.1547 0.1473
...and here are the 20 most frequent glyph pairs with an uncertain space before them:
kgram: ,SC ,AM ,ZC ,FC ,8A ,AE ,FA ,OE ,AR ,89
Rank: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Count: 195 162 149 126 124 101 97 86 82 70
AllFreq: 0.0011 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004
REFreq: 0.0910 0.0756 0.0695 0.0588 0.0579 0.0471 0.0453 0.0401 0.0383 0.0327
RECmFrq: 1.0000 0.9090 0.8334 0.7639 0.7051 0.6472 0.6001 0.5548 0.5147 0.4764
kgram: ,SO ,4O ,FS ,OR ,AN ,PA ,AT ,PC ,EF ,AJ
Rank: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Count: 55 54 45 42 39 29 28 27 26 26
AllFreq: 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
REFreq: 0.0257 0.0252 0.0210 0.0196 0.0182 0.0135 0.0131 0.0126 0.0121 0.0121
RECmFrq: 0.4438 0.4181 0.3929 0.3719 0.3523 0.3341 0.3206 0.3075 0.2949 0.2828
None of those counts are huge given the total number of glyph pairs in the running text, but there is at least a weak signal with regard to some of the most obvious candidates like OE, OR, AE, AR, and the various word-end specific A<x> combos like AM, AN, AT, AJ.
Of course, the above results need to be taken with an appropriate grain of salt given disagreements between transcribers regarding whether something is a clear or uncertain space, or whether there is an uncertain space in a given position at all. Nevertheless, thought it was worth throwing out there as something to think about.
Happy New Year to all readers & posters on the Ninja, and best wishes for a happy & healthy 2026.
|
|
|
|
| Question about Binding |
|
Posted by: ben._corley - 31-12-2025, 06:19 PM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (1)
|
|
Hello! I recently watch Lisa's lecture at the University of Toronto, available here (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). She presented some evidence that the MS was originally meant to to be a collection of singlians, kinda like a pamphlet today if I understand correctly, instead of bound as a book. She explained it much clearer and accurate than I have here, so I recommend you watch.
This prompted a question for me: was the intention to have the MS bound despite its singlian nature? This, of course, prompts several follow-up questions.
1) Would a 15th century scribe be aware/knowledgable about binding practices?
2) Would a typical MS be bound before being authored or authored then bound?
3) What does the handwriting/paleography of the script suggest about the authors' experience and knowledge of writing?
4) If the authors were not experienced, could they have written the MS as singlians still intending for them to be bound?
I do not have any answers for these, just some questions I was left with after watching. I would love to hear what you guys have to think about this!
|
|
|
|
| A Testable Hypothesis: Base-60 Structure in the Voynich Manuscript (Request for Criti |
|
Posted by: Rochdi Badereddine - 31-12-2025, 12:34 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (7)
|
|
Hello everyone,
My previous thread was locked and moved to the ChatGPT section. This was justified: I made the mistake of using AI tools to compile and format my raw notes into a "paper", which resulted in generic, AI-generated prose. I apologize for this breach of forum etiquette.
However, the underlying data—which I extracted manually—deserves a proper discussion.
Who I am & My Approach:
I am a researcher in Quantum Physics and Cosmology (Associate Professor). I am not a linguist. I approached the Voynich Manuscript not as a language to be read, but as a dataset to be solved, looking for signal consistencies, astronomical constants, and noise distribution (Zipf's Law).
Here is my core thesis, presented simply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HYPOTHESIS
The manuscript may use a logographic structure similar to Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform:
- Prefixes = Integer numerical values (Base 60)
- Suffixes = Sexagesimal fractions or grammatical markers
- Parsing Rule = "Maximal Munch" (always consume the longest possible defined prefix)
Note: I am not claiming the language IS Sumerian. I am suggesting the scribal METHOD (logograms + base 60) is the key to the structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY LOOK AT ANTIQUE SYSTEMS?
1. Content vs. Container: Carbon-14 dates the vellum (15th C.), not the origin of the data. Medieval scribes frequently copied antique scientific tables.
2. Mul.Apin Correspondence: The 12 zodiac signs in Folio F72 match the standard Babylonian names (documented in Hunger & Pingree, 1989, MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium, AfO Beiheft 24).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERIFIABLE TESTS
Test 1: Numerical Prefixes (The "Stems")
I assigned Base-60 values based on phonetic roots. The consistency is striking:
Prefix | Value | Sumerian Root | Interpretation
--------|-------|------------------|----------------------------------
qo- | 30 | AN (Sky) | 30° = One zodiac sign
ok- | 31 | EN (Lord) | ~31° = Longitude of Pleiades (~0 CE)
ot- | 32 | UD (Day/Sun) | Solar/Stellar culmination point
ch- | 24 | G (Big/Base) | 24 Hours
d- | 7 | GIŠ (Wood/Tool) | 7 Days (Lunar quarter)
Test 2: Fractional Suffixes (Working Hypothesis)
Assuming suffixes act as sexagesimal increments:
- -al = +1/60
- -ol = +2/60
- -ar = +3/60
- -or = +4/60
Note: These suffix values are hypothetical assignments. No clear statistical pattern (frequency, alphabetical order) justifies them yet. This is a recognized weak point in my model.
Test 3: Calculation Examples
Word | Calculation | Value
-------|------------------------|--------
okal | ok (31) + al (1/60) | 31.0167
qokal | qo (30) + al (1/60) | 30.0167
chol | ch (24) + ol (2/60) | 24.0333
dar | d (7) + ar (3/60) | 7.0500
Test 4: Precession Dating (The strongest evidence)
The prefix ok- (Value 31) is consistently associated with "Principal Star" or Pleiades groups.
- Current Position of Pleiades: ~60° ecliptic longitude
- Voynich Value (ok-): 31°
- Difference: ~29°
- Precession Rate: 1° per 72 years
- Precession Calculation: 29° × 72 years = ~2088 years
- Implied Observation Date: 2025 - 2088 = 60 BCE to 100 CE
This suggests the manuscript contains observational data from the Classical/Hellenistic era, copied onto 15th-century vellum.
Test 5: Zipf's Law
The Zipf coefficient of my parsed corpus is 0.81, compared to ~1.0 for natural narrative language. This "flatter" distribution is consistent with tabular/measurement data rather than prose, similar to astronomical tables or accounting records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REQUEST
I do not claim to have "solved" the Voynich. I am proposing a testable grid.
Could the community help me:
1. Check the Mul.Apin correlations on the Zodiac folios?
2. Test this "Maximal Munch" parsing on other sections?
3. Point out where the logic breaks?
My PDF analysis is still available for those who want to see the raw data tables. I welcome all constructive critique.
Regards,
Rochdi
|
|
|
|
| The Biological Section as a Vision of the End of Times |
|
Posted by: Surayya munir isah - 31-12-2025, 10:22 AM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (12)
|
|
Hello everyone, my name is Surayya. I have a unique perspective on the biological section of the Voynich Manuscript.
Based on Islamic eschatological signs (End of Times), I believe the high number of female figures represents a future era where women significantly outnumber men.
Furthermore, I believe the interconnected pools of water reflect the normalization of actions/sins in the final era, where morality flows like water and becomes common. The script represents the 'Seed' (Male element) and the drawings represent the 'Field' (Female element).
- I look forward to your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
| Word repetition analysis of the different hands |
|
Posted by: anejati - 29-12-2025, 08:24 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (7)
|
|
I haven't seen this analysis posted here before. It's been suggested that repeating word sequences (like sheol sheol sheol) are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. caused by scribal error. If this were the case, you would expect there to be differences amongst the different scribal hands, reflecting different levels of experience, scribal accuracy, etc. So to test this, I wrote some code to analyze the variations of word repetition among the 5 different known hands. In summary, these are the results (from the RF EVA transcription given You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.):
Code: Hand | Total Words | 2-Word Repetitions | 3-Word Repetitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 8,626 | 64 | 1
2 | 8,947 | 60 | 2
3 | 11,547 | 62 | 1
4 | 654 | 2 | 0
5 | 866 | 1 | 0
I then did a Bayesian analysis, modeling the repetition probability of each hand as a Beta distribution and calculating the likelihood that the different hands actually represent different repetition rates. The hands with more words (1, 2, 3) lead to a narrower, 'tighter' distribution because we have more data. The low-resource hands (4 & 5) have broader distributions (the repetition rates are consistent with a larger range of underlying repetition probabilities). For 3-word repetitions, there isn't enough data to draw meaningful conclusions except to say that there's nothing to indicate any statistically significant differences. For 2-word repetitions, here are the results.
In summary: Mostly, hands have repetition rates that are consistent with each other. The largest statistically meaningful difference seems to be between hand 3 and hand 1. The Hand 1 mean rate is 0.753%. The hand 3 mean rate is 0.546%. The probability that Hand 1 > Hand 3 is 96.6% according to this model. Interestingly, hand 4 seems consistent with all the other hands (except 1) despite the fact that hand 4 seems to mostly write in "labelese" and not "prose", indicating that the repetitions may actually be a feature of the language rather than a mistake.
I also ran this analysis on the version of the EVA transcription by Lisa Fagin Davis where some of the gallows characters are taken to be substitutions of each other. The results are broadly similar, and I get around 84% likelihood of hand 1 > hand 3
There are some limitations here due to limitations of my script, for example I haven't counted word repetitions that cross line boundaries. But this seems unlikely to change the result.
What are my conclusions? Well it's no surprise when it comes to the VMS but it's hard to conclude anything. The consistency of repetitions amongst the hands seems to indicate that the repetitions are a language feature, not mistakes. The higher rate of repetitions for hand 1 vs hand 3 could either be due to mistakes or differences in Currier A (which is predominantly what hand 1 writes in).
|
|
|
|
|
