+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: A family of grammars for Voynichese (/thread-4418.html)
RE: On the "ir" codas - Jorge_Stolfi - 26-02-2026
(26-02-2026, 01:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But now I have become convinced that many, if not all, of the hundreds of ir endings are in fact scribal errors for iin. These errors could have been caused by the Author's sloppy "cursive" handwriting on the draft, where an in could easily be confused with an r.
A parallel for that kind of error can be seen in this clip that I posted a while ago:
The Rubricator monk who owned the red inkwell made several errors that were corrected by a subsequent Proofreader monk in brown ink. From the nature of the errors, it is evident that the Rubricator did not know Latin, not even enough to tell that "raaonem" was not a valid word. Thus he misread the "ti" of the original as single "a" and copied it as such (J3). (And he must have been copying from another "clean-copy" manuscript, not from a draft!)
Back to VMS, for the Author his sloppy "in"s at the end of words were not a problem, because he knew the language and knew that only an in would be valid at that point. But the Scribe could not tell his in from his r and thus often wrote the latter. I suppose that the Author was not happy when he saw that, but again it was not a problem for him because he knew that those r were in fact in. Just like anyone who knew Latin could tell when an "u" in a Latin manuscript was in fact a "v". That is my current view of what happened there.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - Jorge_Stolfi - 26-02-2026
Furthermore, the realization that ir is often a scribal error for iin now made me wonder whether a similar story may hold for m.
Specifically, I conjecture that m is a handwriting variant of il, where the separate l (two strokes, i and the tail) is replaced by the loopy tail (one stroke) connected to the previous i.
This story is more complicated than r <-> in, because it requires substantial change in the writing order and direction of the l. But the savings of strokes and space may have led to its "invention" (presumably by the Author himself) and adoption by the Scribe.
However, the prevalence of m at the end of the line suggests that the Scribe was aware of the equivalence il = m and chose to use the latter, on his own, mostly when he was running out of space.
If this conjecture is true, then the coda elements {m}, {im}, and {iim} would be replaced by {il}, {iil} and {iiil}, now parallel to {in},{iin}, and {iiin}. A satisfying increase in symmetry.
On the other hand, that would raise the question of whether l is exclusively a dealer, or it can be a coda {l} all by itself, like {n}. Which would create the same ambiguity that I had to hack away in the case of {r}...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - nablator - 26-02-2026
(26-02-2026, 01:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will let them stand for now...
There are many ambiguous ir/in (at least 16) and almost as many ar/an (at least 11): evidence that some scribe(s) were careless. But there are more than 4 times more ar than ir...
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - Jorge_Stolfi - 26-02-2026
(26-02-2026, 03:27 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But there are more than 4 times more ar than ir...
Yeah. That is why I am reluctant to map them all to ain...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - ReneZ - 27-02-2026
Unfortunately, and as usual, we can only form hypotheses and we cannot decide (*) which of these hypotheses are correct. We may have subjective opinions.
Example: one hypothesis could argue that n and r are the same (or equivalent).
The fact that there are ambiguous forms may suggest (but not prove) that this is the case.
The r would be preferred when there is no preceding i, and the n when there is one (or more).
- - -
Note (*): at least not yet. It may be possible at some point.
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - Jorge_Stolfi - 27-02-2026
(27-02-2026, 12:34 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Example: one hypothesis could argue that n and r are the same (or equivalent).
I won't go that far. For now, I only became convinced that many final ir (note, not just any final r) are scribal errors for iin (note that here r = in, not r = n). I believe that those errors are so common that replacing all final ir by iin will fix more errors than create new ones.
I have no reason to believe (yet) that any or all otar ar or etc were meant to be otain ain oin etc. Much less that any r that is not word-final should be something else. (Although words with r not at the end are surprisingly rare.)
All the best, --stolfi
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - Aga Tentakulus - 27-02-2026
Too little attention is paid to the bow, including the fact that it can stand alone. Symbols that stand alone can be assumed to be a combination and not a single character.
The bow occupies a special position.
Example:
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - Jorge_Stolfi - 27-02-2026
(27-02-2026, 08:40 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Example:Which page is that?
All the best, --stolfi
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - ReneZ - 27-02-2026
(27-02-2026, 06:53 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For now, I only became convinced that many final ir (note, not just any final r) are scribal errors for iin
I agree that that is an interesting possibility, which I had not yet thought of, but I am not convinced of any of the hypotheses, including all of my own :-)
RE: A family of grammars for Voynichese - Aga Tentakulus - 27-02-2026
From my collection