| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 799 online users.
» 5 Member(s) | 788 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Google, Twitter, kckluge, N._N., Radim Dobeš
|
|
|
| Observations on the Visual and Functional Structure of the Voynich Manuscript |
|
Posted by: emanuele.pegorin - 08-02-2026, 06:20 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (137)
|
 |
Hello everyone,
My name is Emanuele Pegorin, and I am an independent researcher with a strong interest in the Voynich Manuscript, particularly in its visual structure and internal logic.
I would like to share some methodological and descriptive observations, without proposing textual “solutions” or decipherments.
1. The manuscript appears to function as a graphic and operational modus operandi of a community of women working in the botanical field, including cultivation, processing, water management, and ritual purification.
2. Images dominate the manuscript and are intentionally enlarged, distorted, and repetitive, suggesting that the communication was designed for a semi-literate or non-literate audience. Written text appears secondary, likely intended for supervisory or intermediary roles.
3. Recurring structural principles are evident, such as centric–radial and centric–convex representations (e.g., foldouts f. 85v–86r), and hierarchical markers, like stars associated with figures and textual sections.
4. In later sections, water basins, hydraulic systems, and drainage channels highlight maintenance and practical management, rather than symbolic or cosmological meaning. The presence of birds nesting or flying in channels signals critical points and operational tasks to be monitored.
5. Jars appear as distinct functional items, each with specific shapes, decorations, and plant references, suggesting that they were intended for different uses or clients, and indicating an organized and diversified production system.
These observations are interpretative and not conclusively provable, but they provide a visual and methodological framework to view the manuscript as a coherent system of work, roles, and ritual practices.
I would be glad to receive any comments, insights, or suggestions on how to refine this image-centered analysis or integrate it with existing Voynich research.
Thank you very much for your attention,
Emanuele Pegorin
|
|
|
| What are Voynichese words? |
|
Posted by: vosreth - 06-02-2026, 01:34 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (14)
|
 |
Dear friends,
I keep coming back to a question that won't quite leave me alone: how should we actually describe the structural behaviours we see in Voynichese "words"?
They're clearly not simple substitution outputs, and they're not random strings. That's been shown many times. But they don't behave like ordinary words in known languages either. They're constrained, but not in the ways we'd expect.
Here are some observations. I'll present the raw distributional facts first, then show why describing them is harder than it looks.
1. Rigid initial binding: The token q appears word-initially 99% of the time. It essentially never occurs mid-word or finally. When it appears, it selects o as its immediate follower at 97%. Whatever q is doing, it does it once, at the start, and it binds tightly to what follows.
2. Two boundary types with different continuations: Both y and l tend toward final positions, but they create different continuation environments. After y-final words, q appears at 27% and ch/sh appear at 17%. After l-final words, q appears at only 9% while ch/sh rise to 33%. So we have two "closers" that close in different ways. One favours continuation with q (which binds to o). The other favours continuation with ch and sh (which themselves open bounded structures).
3. Paradigmatic exclusion with ordering: The tokens k and t rarely appear together (under 2% co-occurrence). When they do co-occur, t precedes k at roughly 2:1. This looks like a paradigmatic contrast: two tokens competing for the same structural slot, with one tending to come first when both are present.
4. A suffix-like element changes selection rates: Compare k with f, or t with p. The f and p variants are followed by ch at 37–46%, compared with only 10–17% for k and t. Whatever f and p are, they license continuation with ch at three to four times the rate.
5. Reduplication creates gradients: The token e can appear singly, doubled, tripled, or quadrupled. As the chain lengthens, two things shift systematically. What precedes the chain changes: e follows ch/sh 63% of the time, ee only 28%, and eee just 9%. And what follows the chain changes: e is followed by s only 1% of the time, ee reaches 4%, and eee reaches 13%. This isn't free repetition. Longer chains shift from appearing after ch/sh to appearing after k/t, and increasingly close with s.
6. Structures can nest: Forms like ofchedy appear to embed one bounded structure inside another: the f selects ch, which opens a structure that closes with y, all sitting inside a larger unit beginning with o.
This is where it gets tricky: Each of these observations can be described in multiple ways. Take the first one. The observation is: q is 99% initial and selects o at 97%. A grammarian might call this "demonstrative binding to head." A mnemonist might call it "locus anchoring." A notationalist might call it "record initialisation." A medieval logician might call it "term introduction." Or take the nesting behaviour. The observation is: f selects ch...y inside o... A grammarian sees "relative clause inside noun phrase." A mnemonist sees "room within room." A notationalist sees "sub-record inside record." A logician sees "supposition under supposition." The problem is not that one of these is right and the others wrong. The problem is that the distributional evidence cannot distinguish between them. The constraints are real; the interpretation is not forced. Worse: interpretive choices compound. If k is a determiner, then o must be a head. If o is a head, then qo is a noun phrase. If qok is a determined noun phrase, then f must be a relative determiner. Each step feels plausible, but the whole chain rests on the first assumption. Choose a different starting point and you get a different system.
The medieval logicians had a phrase for this kind of contextual constraint: "Talia sunt subiecta qualia permiserint praedicata" ("The subjects are such as the predicates permit"). What can appear is governed by what surrounds it. That describes Voynichese rather well. But it doesn't tell us whether we're looking at grammar, or memory architecture, or something else entirely. There's also the curious fact that Voynichese seems to lack things we'd expect from natural language: no clear tense or aspect marking, no subject-predicate agreement, no conjunctions, no obvious truth-conditional structure. It has positional constraints without syntactic roles, paradigmatic contrasts without lexical diversity, optional length markers that seem to tune mode rather than content.
So I find myself left with a fairly basic question: How should we talk about Voynichese words or tokens at all?
Are they words? Clauses? Records? Control sequences? Loci in a memory system? Terms under modes of supposition? Or are these all just isomorphic descriptions of the same underlying structural observations, each wearing the vocabulary of a different discipline? My concern is that many similar observations may already exist across the forum, scattered under different theories (linguistic, cryptographic, logical, mnemonic), each with its own semantic framing. And that makes it hard to see what is actually shared versus what is interpretation.
I'd be very interested in thoughts on:
- how to discuss these regularities without prematurely committing to meaning,
- whether there's a neutral descriptive vocabulary that's actually usable,
- what minimal properties any explanation of Voynichese must account for, regardless of theory,
- and whether the isomorphism between these frameworks is itself telling us something.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
| [split] Sumerian/Babylonian sacred marriage |
|
Posted by: tadji - 05-02-2026, 03:33 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Bonjour à tous,
Je souhaite partager une hypothèse de travail concernant le manuscrit de Voynich (MS 408). Plutôt que de rechercher une langue européenne codée ou un herbier standard, j'ai exploré la possibilité que le manuscrit soit une préservation phonétique d'un ancien rituel oriental .
Voici le cœur de la théorie :
1. Contexte : Un grimoire « faiseur de rois ». Mon hypothèse est que le manuscrit ne décrit pas la nature, mais plutôt la préparation du Mariage Sacré (Hieros Gamos) de la tradition mésopotamienne (Sumer/Babylone). Ce rituel, impliquant l'union du roi et de la Grande Prêtresse (incarnant Ishtar/Inanna), était destiné à conférer au souverain pouvoir divin et légitimité royale. Le manuscrit pourrait être une tentative médiévale ou de la Renaissance de préserver ce savoir interdit (« comment devenir un dieu ») en le codant phonétiquement.
2. Linguistique : La piste phonétique La structure du texte pourrait être une translittération phonétique approximative de termes akkadiens ou sumériens par un scribe qui ne comprenait pas la langue originale. - Exemple : Le célèbre incipit
oror shedy
pourrait dériver de racines sémitiques liées à Shadû (Montagne / Seigneur / Tout-Puissant), marquant le début d'une invocation plutôt que d'une phrase grammaticale.
3. Les « Rosettes » : Architecture, non Biologie. Le complexe folio des Rosettes est souvent interprété comme une carte ou une cellule. Je propose qu'il s'agisse d'une représentation en perspective aplatie d'une ziggourat et de son complexe de temples. C'est le lieu géographique du rituel. Le scribe a dessiné les murs circulaires comme des pétales, mêlant architecture orientale et motifs floraux.
4. Balnéologie et absence des hommes. Les nombreuses femmes nues (nymphes) représentent les prêtresses ( Qadishtu ) dans les bains rituels souterrains ( Apsû ). Les systèmes de tuyauterie complexes symbolisent la circulation des fluides sacrés nécessaires à la cérémonie. L'absence quasi totale d'hommes s'explique simplement : le lecteur est le protagoniste masculin . Le livre est un manuel pratique destiné à celui qui doit s'unir à la Déesse.
5. Botanique : Ingrédients, non espèces. Les plantes « chimériques » sont représentées pour illustrer leur fonction magique ou psychotrope (dans les huiles d’onction et les vins rituels) plutôt que leur morphologie réelle. Le scribe illustrait littéralement les effets décrits oralement (par exemple, « racine de lion », « fleur de lune »).
Conclusion : Le manuscrit de Voynich pourrait être un guide d'auto-déification , codé pour échapper à l'Inquisition car son contenu est doublement hérétique : il est païen (centré sur Ishtar) et prétend élever l'homme au statut de dieu par la magie sexuelle.
J'aimerais beaucoup connaître votre avis, surtout s'il y a parmi vous des linguistes qui pourraient tester les correspondances phonétiques entre le « voynichais » et l'akkadien/sumérien sur la base de ce cadre rituel.
|
|
|
|
The text of Voynich MS 408 was generated by a 15th century Volvelle. |
|
Posted by: PandaRosa - 04-02-2026, 02:12 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (1)
|
|
Hi everyone,
For over a century, linguists and cryptographers have failed to translate the Voynich Manuscript. I am proposing that they have failed because they are making a category error: they are trying to read a Machine Output as if it were a natural language. Full academic paper: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I have developed a method that reverse-engineers the manuscript not as a text, but as the result of a 15th-century mechanical device.
Here is why this is the only explanation that fits the data:
1. Proof It Is Not a "Story" (The Jaccard Anomaly) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If you write a story, you naturally connect sentences. If line 1 is about a "cat," line 2 usually mentions "it" or "meow." In statistics, we measure this connection using the Jaccard Similarity Index. Normal Language: Has a score of roughly 0.35. Words flow and repeat naturally to build context. The Voynich Manuscript: Has a score of 0.02. almost 0.
What does this mean? It means the "author" of the Voynich Manuscript had total amnesia after every single line. There is zero narrative connection between lines. This is impossible for a human writing a story.
2. The Code Structure: The PRS Formula
If you look closely at the Voynich text, you will see that every single "word" follows a rigid, unbreakable structure. In my research, I call this the PRS Architecture:
[Prefix] + [Root] + [Suffix]
Think of it like a slot machine with three wheels. You cannot put the third wheel first. The structure is physically locked.
Prefix (The Action): e.g., qo- (Instrumental use / "Use tool")
Root (The Material): e.g., -ke- (Heat / Thermal)
Suffix (The State): e.g., -dy (Measurement / Dose)
Example: The common word qokedy is not a random word. It is a constructed command: qo (Action) + ke (Heat) + dy (Measure) = "Measure the application of heat." These meanings are taken solely and exclusively from Cappelli's Latin abbreviations: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This rule holds true across the entire manuscript. Natural languages are flexible; the Voynich Manuscript is rigid.
3. The Only Explanation: The "Syntaxis Volvella"
How do we explain a text that has no memory (Jaccard Anomaly) and a rigid 3-part structure (PRS)?
The text was generated by a Volvelle (a Cipher Wheel) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
We know these devices existed in the 15th century (like the Alberti Disk). My theory posits that the scribe was not "writing" in a creative sense. He was an industrial operator observing a chemical process.
The Workflow:
1. Event: The operator sees the liquid boiling.
2. Encryption: He uses the device (The Volvelle). He aligns the Action Ring to "Process," the Root Ring to "Heat," and the State Ring to "Measure."
3. Output: He writes down the resulting string: qokedy.
This explains why there are no corrections in the entire book. You don't "edit" a logbook entry generated by a machine; you just spin the wheel and write the next data point.
Conclusion The Voynich Manuscript a chemical and pharmaceutical database encrypted via a mechanical Volvella.
|
|
|
|
| A Round-Trip Encoding Model for the Voynich Manuscript |
|
Posted by: justinpincar - 03-02-2026, 03:45 AM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (2)
|
 |
We present a round-trip encoding model for the Voynich manuscript—a bidirectional system achieving 99.6% coverage across 38,204 words. The model describes the encoding as Cₙ = f(Pₙ, Pₙ₋₁), where ciphertext depends on both the current and previous abstract plaintext symbols. We identify an alphabet of 21 symbols with 18 word-initial classes, demonstrate deterministic decryption, and validate through cross-validation (97.4%). Unlike prior generative approaches, our model produces exact original ciphertext through round-trip transformation: decrypt(encrypt(P)) = P. The abstract plaintext symbols are structural placeholders—we identify the encoding mechanism but not the underlying language. External evidence is needed to complete any decipherment.
Paper: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (well, sort of) |
|
Posted by: Jorge_Stolfi - 01-02-2026, 01:40 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (88)
|
 |
Hi all,
I think I made an important discovery about the VMS. Not a theory, interpretation, guess, etc, but a fact. As certain as it could be.
Following a famous tradition, let me announce it as an anagram:
ANIMUS NE IDEAS
This stratagem was used in the Renaissance by several scientists to announce their discoveries to friends. Galileo used it twice in letters to Kepler, to announce his discovery of the phases of Venus and of the rings of Saturn (although he had no idea of what the latter were). I recall some other astronomer (Huygens perhaps?) using it to announce a similar discovery (moons of Saturn?).
The primary purpose of these anagrams was to secure the claim to priority, without revealing the discovery itself. The method could have two additional pluses: it avoided triggering any kind of "Holy Inquisition" that may see it, and it saved the author from embarrassment if he later found that the discovery was a dud. I am counting on both pluses here.
The author generally tried to make the anagram itself be a Latin sentence. But, as in my case, the attempt usually was less than successful. The result usually had stilted grammar and strained words. (I asked Google AI if my anagram above was proper Latin, and it gave me a page-long scolding like that of the centurion in Life of Brian. For one thing, it said that "ideas" is not Latin but Greek.) Sometimes the author gave up and ended the anagram with a nonsense string of leftover consonants, like one's tray at the end of a game of Scrabble.
Because of these features, especially the last one, back in 2000 or so I entertained the idea that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. text could be such thing: an anagram of some text that the author wanted to hide, but still be able to prove that he wrote it, if and when needed. It would explain the strained words, the nonsensical sentence, the "leftover" letters... But I concluded that it was unlikely for several reasons; and now that I have seen the UV image of that page, I have a much better explanation, that is almost certain too.)
Anyway, thanks for reading. I will announce here the discovery and its evidence, in the plain and in detail, in the near future.
All the best, --stolfi
|
|
|
|
| word structures and systems 2.0 |
|
Posted by: Petrasti - 31-01-2026, 10:39 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (3)
|
|
In my previous thread (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) I tried to explain which structures I recognize as repetitions in the manuscript. It's actually a somewhat more complex approach; I've put the words, along with a few selected particles or prefixes, into a table to illustrate this more clearly. There are two recurring patterns. The first involves the changing particles before words (prefixes); the second shows that the gallow signs before or inside the "ch" sound doesn't belong to the word itself (as still in the first prefix system mentioned). Maybe the table will help clarify the structure. However, both systems belong together, because the system of prefixes makes the repeating of prefixes visible, and the system of gallows signs further expands the system of prefixes. At the end of the thread, I'll add a language option. My aim here isn't to prove the existence of a language, but rather to demonstrate a repeating system. The language example is simply meant to show that there are languages that behave according to the belwo mentioned system (not for the structure of complete manuscript)
the general system of prefixes:
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 are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
the system of the gellow signs before and between ch
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 are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I'll give you an example from Aramaic just as a brief aside. (I'm not convinced by it myself) but it illustrates the possibility.
(the aramaic translation and grammar is made by AL, errores included)
voynich word: char - EVA translation: chal Aramaic: chal = eat!
ychal = achal = he ate
ochal = ochal = he eats (eating)
qochal = kochal = he ist eating (Present continuous). The prefix "K-" or "Ko-" is the standard marker for the present tense
tchal = tchal = you eat / she eat
chchal = nchal =we eat
lchal = lchal = to eat
pchal = pchal = he will eat
chaly = chala = she ate
lchal = lchal = to eat
ty l-ochal = ta lchal = come to eat
odain o ochal = odan u-ochal = we made the food
|
|
|
|
|
but I am curious to hear current views.