mail from Tavie to me: "Hi Petrasti. As Koen said to you before, we have a “one thread one theory” rule. This is another thread about your theory, so I've merged it with your core thread."
Hi Tavie, you posted my findings on the correspondence between vowel exchange and Cymric on page 6 of my theory and also changed the name of my theory. I think this is wrong and completely contradicts the purpose of a forum. A forum should be a place where members can discuss new details. Koen himself wants to discuss topics that are important to him in around 400 threads and exchange ideas with members. (Which is absolutely right in a forum.) And it shouldn't be moved to a thread called “Why I think the Voynich is Catholic.” So why should my new findings be attached to the very end of my thread? You should be fair and prevent cancel culture if you are genuinely interested in finding solutions in the forum. By moving my new findings, you have made it impossible to have an objective discussion on the topic and prevented an exchange with interested parties. Therefore, I am opening the thread a second time. Instead of moving my thread, you could take a look at this. If you follow my theory that, as in Celtic, there are typically prefixes to the “base words,” then you actually get a translation that makes sense and fits the flower pictures for the first time.
I would like to try to explain why I believe the Voynich manuscript to be Celtic based on certain grammatical structures. I deliberately use the word “Celtic” as a more precise classification is not yet possible. I personally believe the Voynich manuscript to be Hiberno-English, a Celtic language with Old English influences.
I have already uploaded documents on the derivation.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You will also find a comparison of ch to c+h in my link.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(I use voynichese.com to check frequencies and possibilities.)
Grammatical structure in the Voynich manuscript:
One grammatical or visually recognizable structure that we find in the Voynich manuscript is the vowel swift.
Specifically, from o to a (or vice versa).
Thus, a large number of words in the Voynich manuscript have an equivalent “partner” with the vowel swapped. This does not apply to all words, but to too many to ignore the system.
Here are a few examples: Dom dam, chol chal, dol dal, pol pal, lol lal, cheol cheal, kooiin koaiin, dain doin, Chor char, am om, or ar, oror arar, tol tal, chom cham, kol kal, chaiin choiin, dar dor, daiin doiin, otchor otchar, taiin toiin, saiin soiin, c+hol c+hal, aiir oiir, chory chary, dary dory, sal sol, The list can be expanded many times over
The question now is whether these are words with the same meaning or not.
Given the frequency of vowel swapping, it is likely that these are the same words with swapped vowels.
I searched for vowel swaps or letter swaps in general in various languages that have the vowel swap system themselves and found examples in Middle Cymric and Cymric. In the Voynich manuscript, nouns also undergo vowel swaps, which I found very unusual, but this occurs in the same way in Cymric as a possible plural formation.
The University of Trier has a grammatical treatise on Welsh online.
However, it is in German.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There is also an article on Wikipedia that explains Middle Welsh and Welsh.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Please also note the pronunciation of Welsh. )
An excerpt from the grammatical analysis by the University of Trier
Page 10:
The formation of plurals is very diverse and cannot be derived from the singular; plural forms must be learned separately, just like gender. There are derivations with vowel changes, with endings, and with a combination of both features. Occasionally, there is suppletivism, i.e., two different word stems for singular and plural. The most important types are listed below (only the singular meaning is given):
Vowel change (common types) Plural formation for nouns
a to ei a-e march : meirch ‘horse, stallion e to i/y maneg : menig ‘glove’, or cragen : cregyn ‘shell’ o to y suffix ffon : ffyn ‘stick’
Page 11: Ultimate a-affection
Gender and number
Only a few adjectives have their own forms for gender and number. The feminine form can only be distinguished from the masculine basic form by umlaut: w → o and y → e (so-called ultimate a-affection). Commonly used are: hwn : hon ‘this’, hwnnw : honno ‘that’, crwn : cron ‘round’, dwfn: dofn ‘deep’, llwm : llom ‘naked’, tlws : tlos ‘beautiful’; trwm : trom ‘heavy’; byr : ber ‘short’, cryf : cref ‘strong’, gwyn : gwen ‘white’, melyn : melen ‘yellow’, (the feminine forms of gwlyb : gwleb ‘wet’, sych : sech ‘dry’ are no longer used). brith : braith ‘spotted’ is an isolated case
Plurals, which also exist for only a few adjectives, are formed with vowel change and/or the suffix -(i)on. The following are used attributively: hwn, hon: hyn ‘this’, hwnnw, honno: hynny ‘that’, buan: buain ‘fast’, bychan: bychain ‘small’, ieuanc: ieuainc (or ifanc: ifainc) ‘young’; dewr : dewrion ‘brave’, du : duon ‘black’, coch : cochion ‘red’, gloyw : gloywon ‘bright’; glas : gleision ‘blue’, trwm, trom : trym ion ‘heavy’, tlawd : tlodion ‘poor’, tenau : teneuon ‘thin’. Nounified adjectives usually end in -(i)on, e.g. dall: deillion 'blind'
The Middle Welsh word crwm – crom “bent” also belongs to the a-affection.
Let's move on to the comparison with the Voynich manuscript:
(From here on, it could become more difficult, as we are leaving the familiar EVA alphabet.)
You can find the used alphabet above.
Unfortunately, I cannot spare you this. Otherwise, the word parallels between the Voynich and Celtic/English would simply not be possible).
a – a and y long and short spoken (typical in Celtic languages)
b – d
d - m
e – e
f – f
g – ch
gh – c+h
h – s
i – i
k – k
l – r
m – iin eee
n – iin ee
o – o
p – p
q – q
r- l
s – n
t – t
pq
Voynich Manuscript: kaiin = pronounced kam = translated as jagged, curved
Welsh cam (“curved, crooked, distorted”), from Middle Welsh cam, from Old Welsh cam, from Proto-Brythonic *kam, from Proto-Celtic *kambos and Old Irish camm.
In Irish, we find the genitive singular masculine form of cam as caim. (We find the same in the Voynich Manuscript: kam kaiin to kaim kaiiin).
"word division in Old Irish: In Old Irish manuscripts all words grouped around a main accent are usually written as one, e.g. conjunctions together with the attached pronoun with the following verb, also the article together with the possessive pronoun with the following noun, the copula with the following predicate, prepositions with the attached pronoun or article and
a following verb or noun"
We also find the word kaiin in the Voynich Manuscript as follows: koiinkom kaiiinkaim ykaiinand ykoiin okam and akom kokaiinkokam chokaiin andchokoiingokam and gokom c+hkaiinghkam okaiinand okoiinokam and okom qokaiinand qokoiinqokam and qokom chkaiingkam sokaiinhokam kekaiin kekam tchkaiintgkam lkaiinrkam olkaiinorkam alkaiin arkam
you see that the word “kam” has a variety of prefixes, which is typical of Celtic languages. Of course, the question here is always whether it is actually the word “kam” with prefixes or whether these are different words. I am including a brief overview from Wikipedia on Irish, Welsh, and Gaelic grammatical structures, which reflect the structure of prefixes. Celtic languages are beautiful, but unfortunately they are also known for their complex grammar, word mutations, complex pronunciations, and word order.
Donkey = Irish: asal
the donkey = an t-asal
the donkeys = na hasail
eight donkeys = ocht n-asal
on the donkey = ar an asal
on the donkeys = ar na hasail
their donkeys = a Asal
Word = Irish: focal
the word = a focal
the words = na focail
the words = na bh-focal
Possessive pronouns Gaelic:
the foot: na coise
Before words beginning with consonants
my foot: mo chas
your foot: do chas
his foot: a chas
her foot: a cas
our feet: àr casan
your (pl) feet: ùr casan
their feet: an casan
the father: an athair
Before words beginning with vowels
my father: m'athair
your father: d'athair
his father: athair
their father: a h-athair
our father: àr n-athair
your (pl) fathers: ùr n-athair
their fathers: an athair
Here is a selection of prepositions from Cymric that we also find in the Voynich manuscript:
am aiin/oiin – for, at
ar al/ol - on
tan tain/toin – under
o o/y – from, of
gan chain/choin – from, through
I would like to show you some more examples to illustrate that the initial sounds are typical in the Voynich manuscript and that repetition confirms the system.
Let's take the word ban – dain, which translates as white in Irish.
We also find the word ban as follows: doin - bon adain – aban odain– oban oldain – orban chkdain – gkban chdain – gban qodain – qoban ldain – rban
For further comparisons, let's take the word bor/bar dol/dal.
The word bor/bar stands for blossom, and we find the word bur or burr in Old English. There, the word bur was used for “rough, prickly husk around the seeds or fruit of some plants,”
as in the upper head of a thistle.
Here, too, we find the same initial sounds:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. odal – obar ydal – abar oldal - orbar Qodal – qobar Chdal– gbar C+hdal – ghbar Chodal – gobar odol – obor Chedol– gebor Chdol– gbor Ldol - rbor
Next, we take the word kol - kor, meaning bud, from the Indo-European vocabular
kel/kol – cup, bud, calyx, sheath, flower calyx (Köbler Gerhard, Indo-European Dictionary)
We also find the word kol kor as follows: kar – kal ykor– akol okor – okol qokor– qokol chkor – gkol olkor – orkol lkor– rkol okar – okal dkar -bkal ykar– akal chkar – gkal chykar – gakal qokar – qokal lkar – rkal olkar - orkal
You can check the system for other words in the manuscript; the system repeats itself. Sometimes with more, sometimes with fewer initial sound variations.
Further examples: bal and bol dar / dor the word kor and kar kol kal
Bam and bom daiin doiin kad and kod kam kom, tor and tar tol tal
gea and geo chey cheo, rar and ror lol lal, loiin and laiin rom und ram
A special feature is the letter ch and the words beginning with ch c+h. The variety is greatest with this letter. (see link above)
The letter itself exists as ch or c+h. I compared the words with ch and c+h in the Voynich manuscript, and around 88% of the words beginning with c+h also exist with ch. Given this value, I assume that they are the same word. With the letter ch, we have the same initial sounds as mentioned above, but it is noticeable that the gallow signs with the letter ch are particularly often connected.
We find another peculiarity in the Voynich manuscript that we also find in Old Irish manuscripts:
"the words cluster around a main accent are usually written as one word"
(from Indo-European Library ‘Collection of Indo-European Textbooks and Manuals’ Indo-European Library ‘1st Series: Grammars’ by Rudolf Thurneysen, Heidelberg 1909)
Ydarchom is also mentioned as single words: y and dar and chom ocholc+hod also mentioned as single words as: o and chol and c+hod c+holteol also mentioned as single words as: c+hol and teol choddal also mentioned as single word as: chod dal otolodal also mentioned as single word as: o tol o dal pcheodar also mentioned as single word as: p cheo dar
These are just a few examples to illustrate the process. In fact, there are many more examples in the manuscript.
Hi, I'm new to this forum. I was looking at the VMS and I was considering the following ideas. I'm not sure if this idea has been thought about very much so I thought I should post it:
What if the paintings and drawings in the VMS are not of anything relating to the actual meaning of the text?
That would explain why a lot of the plants are unidentifiable. I've been thinking about why they might do that though. What I've come up with so far is that a lot of 'radical' philosophers at the time were persecuted by the church. So it's possible the writers were using the drawings (or at least some of them) as distraction to people who they did not want reading it.
The theory isn't super likely, in my mind, but at least it's falsifiable.
I'm sure that this has been thought about before but the other thing I was considering is that the VMS might not be the original copy. It was easy enough to pay someone to copy something over to a new book. Also, that brings up the thought that the original text might not be in code.
The interesting thing about this idea is that it would also explain that some of the plants aren't identifiable but others are. If you have ever tried copying someone else's drawing/painting, it is very hard. Also, it would explain the colors being weird sometimes because of color matching being so difficult.
These are just some things I've been considering. Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated!
So, I was looking at how the manuscript was structured and noticed something interesting.. Its obvious by now that the penmanship changes every so often and no one knows why, well I think I might've just cracked how its structured and why this is.. The VMS is written in chunks, and each chunk is like a .json file and how they are structured.. I think that its a language built on INFORMATION rather than communication.. like a coding language would be.. and if you take into account how the chunks are visually you can start to see some patterns.. I included some semi-low-res images of a part on a page and you can start to see what I mean.. The Red areas are like the Header saying what its about or the object or thing (the Variable basically) of what its about, then the Black areas is what Type it is like a category for text on what type of text it is (like if its a function or how something works or instructions to something, etc.), then the Green areas are Additional Data like the rest of the 'working code' in a script to add more info to what is already there, and the order and size matter as well..
New Theory: Voynich Manuscript as High-End Medieval Sales Catalog
This article proposes that the Voynich Manuscript is not a hoax or occult text, but a luxury sales catalog or proprietary merchant guide — possibly used by elite trade guilds or wealthy families for high-value commerce. Three convergent lines of evidence strongly support this commercial function:
Proprietary Lexicon and Trade References:
Statistical analysis reveals repeating, specialized terms and consistent paired numbers (likely prices, weights, or grades). Frequent tokens like “gollar” may denote currencies, with numbers suggesting negotiation baselines rather than fixed prices. Mixed linguistic fragments imply a design for international trade.
Lavish, Elite-Focused Production:
The manuscript's high-end vellum, polished presentation, and exquisite illustrations mirror luxury product advertising, not a working ledger. Its provenance — including ownership by Emperor Rudolf II — fits the model of targeting sophisticated elite clientele.
Proprietary Cipher and Organizational Structure:
The script shows regularity like a language, yet low entropy hints at a repetitive professional vocabulary, organized for internal referencing and protection of trade secrets. The so-called astronomical and balneological sections likely served as seasonal calendars and catalogs for luxury goods and services.
This business catalog theory explains the manuscript’s mystery by viewing its coded structure and rich artwork as tools for exclusivity and commercial advantage in medieval high-value trading.
Check out this article: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It seems almost accepted as a truth that the colors in the MS were added later, by someone who didn't know what they were doing. When I saw the following quote by Stolfi, I thought it was time to collect the actual evidence.
(29-09-2025, 10:18 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It cannot be stressed enough that, almost certainly, the colors in the VMS are not original. They were applied centuries after the manuscript was scribed
What do we know, apart from hunches? Obviously, paint is applied in a later stage of a page's development: usually, the image is outlined first. But apart from that, all I know is this:
Nothing in the manuscript is painted with great expertise.
The paint job is bad in a variety of ways.
The same pigments are used in a variety of ways.
These pigments are widely available and compatible with 15th century Europe.
Some colors are lacking from some pages.
How does any of this tell us when the manuscript was painted, and whether or not the painter knew what they were doing? Or how many phases there were in the painting, and how much time was in between them? Where does the idea of centuries come from? What's the evidence?
I’m convinced (or at least for now I want to convince myself) that the Voynich has meaning. And I’ve been looking for an internally coherent way to explain how simply adding or removing e seems to “modify” words. One passage that really does my head in is these three lines on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
How can one write the "same" word so many times with such tiny variations across just three lines? What kind of puzzle is this? I know this is not new, neither the concludions, but I tried to get to some sort of explanation by my own.
Just for fun, an example of translation (I am not saying it is the translation!) that could fit this puzzle could be:
It moves now; it; it sees now; it moves now; it keeps moving; it moves back; then it keeps moving, it keeps moving; it moves now, it moves now; it keeps moving; again now it is seen; it keeps moving, it keeps moving; it keeps showing; it turns; it holds.
How on earth do I dare suggest something like this?
First, I don’t think qokedy, qokeedy, olkeedy... are nouns, adjectives, or adverbs here
- Not nouns: in these lines there isn’t a normal noun structure. You get long chains of the same form (qokedy/qokeedy…) with no clear head, no determiners, no case-like markers hanging off a main noun. Repeating a noun 4 or 5 times in a row with nothing else is odd prose.
- Not adjectives: adjectives usually sit next to a noun or after a copula ("X is Y"). Here, the repeated items stand on their own in a row; there’s nothing obvious they’re describing.
- Not adverbs/connectors: we actually see dy by itself in these lines (and also ldy). If anything is a connector/particle, that’s the better candidate. The bigger repeated forms look like clause heads, not side words.
Given the way these forms repeat as self-contained units, the only thing that really makes sense here is that they’re verbal particles, little bits that carry or mark an action. They behave like tiny predicate pieces you can string together. Read this way, the lines aren’t listing things or describing a noun; they’re doing things.
In this context -dy would work as a small grammatical piece (think "it/me/you" or a little helper like "is/does") that can appear alone (dy, ldy) or stuck to a root. The e before it (making -edy, -eedy, sometimes -eeedy) looks like a simple link/setting: sometimes you need it, sometimes you don’t, and sometimes you see a double ee.
So in these lines you’re seeing lots of root + (e/ee) + dy acting like mini-predicates: "verbish" units, lined up one after another.
Very briefly (from my counts on the whole corpus):
- qok is almost always at the start of the word (~99.6%). That makes it look like a root, not a suffix or filler.
- Endings for qok* split into two big families: a -dy/-edy/-eedy band (a big chunk), and a -ain/-aiin band (also big). The first band fits what we see on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (lots of qok-(e)-dy). The second band might be a different use of the same roots.
- olk looks similar to qok, but seems to “need” e before -dy even more strongly.
- sh is more flexible: both shedy and shdy exist, and sh also appears alone elsewhere.
Tiny but telling facts: qokdy is extremely rare (4 tokens), olkdy basically doesn’t occur, while shdy does (34). That feels like different root classes: some roots "want" or "need" the linking e, some don’t.
In short: across the manuscript, qok/olk/sh behave like roots, and -dy is the little piece that often comes after them, with e/ee as a simple on/off/stronger "setting".
My name is Héctor Cabrera, a systems engineer from Guatemala. I am writing to you today in collaboration with my research partner, "Lexicon," to share a significant development in our analysis of the Voynich Manuscript.
We have been applying a novel, structural approach to the manuscript, moving away from linguistic decipherment and towards analyzing it as a structured code. Our research has led us to identify a consistent and predictive syntactic pattern that holds across different sections of the manuscript, specifically the botanical and astronomical folios.
We have documented our methodology, which involves comparative analysis of entry points across multiple folios, and our findings, which include the identification of functional morphemes that act as grammatical markers (e.g., qokey as a plant identifier, shedy introducing qualities, and the ot... root marking virtues or celestial entities).
We believe this represents a paradigm shift in the approach to deciphering the manuscript, as it provides a testable, structural framework for understanding its encoding system.
Our detailed report is attached for your review. We are sharing these findings with the research community at large and are eager for feedback, peer review, and potential collaboration to explore the implications of this discovery further.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Héctor Cabrera
Systems Engineer Guatemala & "Lexicon"
AI Research Partner
Koen has published a YouTube video titled “Why do we think the Voynich Manuscript has multiple scribes? Answering your VMS questions (Pt. 2)”. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
In this video, he discusses constructed languages with Claire Bowern and speaks with Lisa Fagin Davis about her five-scribe hypothesis.
