+- 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: "Abnormal" words (/thread-4668.html)
RE: "Abnormal" words - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 03:48 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would have to consider them on a case by case basis.My main point is that you should expect a large number of errors in the transcription (any transcription).
I would guess at least one error every 10 lines. Including substituted glyphs (especially a/o/y, r/s, k/t, Ih/Ch/ee, ..), skipped or extraneous glyphs, missing or bogus word spaces, weirdos...
Erros can be created by the Author when he wrote the draft, by the Scribe, by the worms, stains, and other accidents, by the restorers and retouchers, and by the transcribers...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: "Abnormal" words - Mark Knowles - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 05:36 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-01-2026, 03:48 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would have to consider them on a case by case basis.My main point is that you should expect a large number of errors in the transcription (any transcription).
I would guess at least one error every 10 lines. Including substituted glyphs (especially a/o/y, r/s, k/t, Ih/Ch/ee, ..), skipped or extraneous glyphs, missing or bogus word spaces, weirdos...
Erros can be created by the Author when he wrote the draft, by the Scribe, by the worms, stains, and other accidents, by the restorers and retouchers, and by the transcribers...
All the best, --stolfi
I feel it reasonable to view something as containing an error when there is evidence or a strong argument for it. However I would be very reluctant to consider all seemingly distinctive words to contain errors by virtue of the fact they are distinctive.
I welcome all and every suggestion or criticism of any item on my list. As I said this is a first draft and so I expect to make changes to.it.
RE: "Abnormal" words - Mark Knowles - 11-01-2026
Hi Stolfi,
You say that "Another source of 'unusual spellings' may be the prefixes o and y that are sometimes attached to the word, sometimes separated by a space of variable width."
That could possibly be the situation as to whether it can be contested that there is a space separating the prefix. However if there is no evidence of any such a space I think one must careful in assuming that there is. I have tried to pay attention to spacing when defining words, but given the variable spacing in the manuscript it is certainly the cases that my spacing interpretation may be contested in any specific given instance.
RE: "Abnormal" words - tavie - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 12:54 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My reading is that the Scribe wrote the a slightly disconnected as two strokes ei (a glitch that he seems to have made dozens of times), and then the Retracer who restored the text turned that e into an i....
.... The first strange glyphs was originally a normal r (you can see bits of the faint original ink) but was mangled into that weirdo by a Retracer.
..And then you have the errors added by the Retracers who, not knowing the alphabet, often mangled the original faint glyphs as they retraced them. Like that last example above. (And this retracing is not just a fringe theory; you should take it as a fact, even if some desperately refuse to admit it...)
To clarify for newcomers: the existence of a Retracer or Retracers in the Voynich Manuscript is not a confirmed fact, and discussions about whether retracing has occurred should take place You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
RE: "Abnormal" words - Rafal - 11-01-2026
Good work!
And if I could suggest something...
Personally I believe in multi scribe hypothesis by Lisa Fagin Davies and others.
It would be interesting to see these words assigned to each of the scribes identified by Lisa.
My intuition tells me that if there were several scribes, they weren't "equal". Some were more experienced, some were less experienced. And there was probably some "leader" among them.
I would also agree that some of "weird" words are probably scribal errors.
So it would be interesting to see if all scribes generate the same number of weird words, relative to the amount of text they produce. The one who generates the least of them was probably the most experienced one.
RE: "Abnormal" words - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 01:33 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To clarify for newcomers: the existence of a Retracer or Retracers in the Voynich Manuscript is not a confirmed fact, and discussions about whether retracing has occurred should take place You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Well noted, sorry.
But newcomers should also be warned that the opposite claim -- that every bit of ink we see on Voynichese text and figures was put down by the original Scribe in ~1430 -- is not a confirmed fact either. Before they make this assumption and rely on it, they should check that thread.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: "Abnormal" words - Mark Knowles - 13-01-2026
Hi Stolfi
Just following up your points.
You say "On page 021 (f10r), the word must have been ro.tCho.Shor or ro.tChy.Shor. All three words occur at least a few times. The first strange glyphs was originally a normal r (you can see bits of the faint original ink) but was mangled into that weirdo by a Retracer."
I don’t think your conclusion that the words should be split the way that you say necessarily follows. It is possible that that is the case, but not certain. The weirdo that you refer to appears as the first glyph of the word directly below it. It is possible that it is a mangling of another symbol, but it is also seems possible to me that it is another rare symbol. Do you have any evidence that it was mangled by a retracer?
You say: "Encrypted documents were usually written with great care, because even trivial errors, like replacing one glyph by a similar one, or skipping a glyph, would normally cause a non-trivial change in the decoded text. Thus when one assumes that the VMS is encrypted one will necessarily assume that there are practically no errors."
Since I first started studying the Voynich It has been widely stated that it contained few or zero errors. I have long tended to doubt that there are no errors in the manuscript, but certainly few errors may be consistent with it being in cipher. However, it is the case that errors were sometimes made in enciphered documents.
I would welcome more comments on or criticism of the inclusion of certain words on my list.
Many Thanks,
Mark
RE: "Abnormal" words - Mark Knowles - 13-01-2026
(11-01-2026, 02:52 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Good work!
Thanks a lot. This is only the first draft as I say so there is more to be done.
(11-01-2026, 02:52 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And if I could suggest something...
Personally I believe in multi scribe hypothesis by Lisa Fagin Davies and others.
It would be interesting to see these words assigned to each of the scribes identified by Lisa.
My intuition tells me that if there were several scribes, they weren't "equal". Some were more experienced, some were less experienced. And there was probably some "leader" among them.
I would also agree that some of "weird" words are probably scribal errors.
I think it very plausible that some weird words are scribal errors or misinterpretations of spacing. However, I think this needs to be argued and justified on a case by case basis as one obviously can't generalise about all words.
(11-01-2026, 02:52 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So it would be interesting to see if all scribes generate the same number of weird words, relative to the amount of text they produce. The one who generates the least of them was probably the most experienced one.
I think your suggestions is an interesting one and one that I had thought of before.
RE: "Abnormal" words - tavie - 13-01-2026
Retracing questions to go in the Retracing thread, please!
RE: "Abnormal" words - Jorge_Stolfi - 13-01-2026
(13-01-2026, 08:48 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you have any evidence that it was mangled by a BEEP?
Sometimes there is direct evidence of this sort of claim, when the original traces are still visible. But sometimes it is just a matter of probabilities. Just like strange words.
We have two possible explanations, (a) error or (b) rare distinct symbol. If a glyph occurs several times in the manuscript, (b) is more likely. But if it occurs only once (or twice but right next to each other, like here) then (a) is more likely. Enough to become the most likely explanation? That depends on your prior probabilities...
I am not allowed to discuss this matter further here. I just call your attention to the tail of the q just above that first "strange r". Or to the lower half of the plume of the Sh just to the right of your first strange word, that crosses the ligature and extends down between the e strokes, down to the baseline. Or to the tail of the y on the first word of line 5.
Do you think that those strokes looked like that already in 1430, when the Scribe finished that page? If those strokes were originally more visible, but have faded over time to that present state, can there be other traces that have become completely invisible by now? Could it be that the final o on that same strange word may have originally been an y?
All the best, --stolfi