Hypothesis regarding small alphabet

[ViolaGuy32]

Is it possible that the reason that the Voynich script appears to have only 13 or so letters (when accounting for positional variation) is that multiple letters could use the same glyphs? This phenomenon can be found in early Arabic writing. In the Arabic script, there are many sets of letters which are only distinguished by the i'jam, small dots written above or below the letters. However, in early examples of the Arabic script, such as the Burmingham folios, only the rasm is present, and not the i'jam (or harakat). This leads to many sets of letters appearing identical in some or all positions, despite them making completely different sounds. This causes the script to appear to only have 15 distinct letters, despite actually the Arabic script actually having 28 letters.

Is it possible that the Voynich manuscript exhibits a similar phenomenon of multiple letters appearing identical in some or all positions, and thus actually has a larger alphabet than it appears to?

[Bluetoes101]

It might be possible, but as you say when this happens in language there is a way to tell. Without this way everyone would be lost. 
You could add a way, like hide "12212" in the text which tells the reader the rule is option 1 then 2 and so on, repeating.   

I think the observable preferences and rules to the text would still be there in the end though, just doubled.



EDIT: Also, Hello and Welcome!

[Koen G]

You seem to have gotten here through one of my videos 

The "13 letters" was not really meant as a definitive solution. My idea was that if you treat the MS as a substitution cipher, you'd get about 13 full letter equivalents out of it, give or take. But I know several researchers here who aren't too keen on that approach.

But I see what you mean with your question. First we'd solve some oddities by assuming positional variation. This would actually not remove too much information from the text. Then we introduce variation by assuming certain of these new letters actually stand for several sounds.

The first issue I see with this is that it would be a headache to test, because you'd be stacking assumptions. First you'd assume positional variation is at play. Then you'd need to guess which glyphs are each other's positional  variants. And then you'd have to take that as the basis for a flexible solution.

[ViolaGuy32]

It might be possible, but as you say when this happens in language there is a way to tell. Without this way everyone would be lost. 
You could add a way, like hide "12212" in the text which tells the reader the rule is option 1 then 2 and so on, repeating.   

I think the observable preferences and rules to the text would still be there in the end though, just doubled.



EDIT: Also, Hello and Welcome!

I'm not sure I understand you. Someone who understands a script with this phenomenon would intuit which letters would make sensible words in each context.

Regarding your statement, "You could add a way, like hide "12212" in the text which tells the reader the rule is option 1 then 2 and so on, repeating," the examples of Arabic with only the rasm do not have a key or code hidden in the manuscripts informing the reader on which letter is intended for each glyph; the reader must intuit the proper letter on a case-by-case basis.

[ViolaGuy32]

You seem to have gotten here through one of my videos 

The "13 letters" was not really meant as a definitive solution. My idea was that if you treat the MS as a substitution cipher, you'd get about 13 full letter equivalents out of it, give or take. But I know several researchers here who aren't too keen on that approach.

But I see what you mean with your question. First we'd solve some oddities by assuming positional variation. This would actually not remove too much information from the text. Then we introduce variation by assuming certain of these new letters actually stand for several sounds.

The first issue I see with this is that it would be a headache to test, because you'd be stacking assumptions. First you'd assume positional variation is at play. Then you'd need to guess which glyphs are each other's positional  variants. And then you'd have to take that as the basis for a flexible solution.

I agree that if this is the case, it would be extremely difficult to solve. I just thought I would bring it up as a possibility since this phenomenon does exist in functional text of natural language, so it should at least be considered as a possibility.

[5dd95]

Hi I would like to say Hello.  i Have not posted Before.   In theary if you Decoded the Voynich Manuscript How would you reveil it to the wourld?

[5dd95]

i think 18 letter Alphabet

[Bluetoes101]

I'm not sure I understand you. Someone who understands a script with this phenomenon would intuit which letters would make sensible words in each context.

Regarding your statement, "You could add a way, like hide "12212" in the text which tells the reader the rule is option 1 then 2 and so on, repeating," the examples of Arabic with only the rasm do not have a key or code hidden in the manuscripts informing the reader on which letter is intended for each glyph; the reader must intuit the proper letter on a case-by-case basis.

"Is it possible that the reason that the Voynich script appears to have only 13 or so letters (when accounting for positional variation) is that multiple letters could use the same glyphs? This phenomenon can be found in early Arabic writing."

So you meant by this, "is it possible Voynich text is Arabic" then? I had mistook this as an example to further your idea of doubling use of characters.

[ViolaGuy32]

I'm not sure I understand you. Someone who understands a script with this phenomenon would intuit which letters would make sensible words in each context.

Regarding your statement, "You could add a way, like hide "12212" in the text which tells the reader the rule is option 1 then 2 and so on, repeating," the examples of Arabic with only the rasm do not have a key or code hidden in the manuscripts informing the reader on which letter is intended for each glyph; the reader must intuit the proper letter on a case-by-case basis.

"Is it possible that the reason that the Voynich script appears to have only 13 or so letters (when accounting for positional variation) is that multiple letters could use the same glyphs? This phenomenon can be found in early Arabic writing."

So you meant by this, "is it possible Voynich text is Arabic" then? I had mistook this as an example to further your idea of doubling use of characters.

I am not saying that the Voynich manuscript is in Arabic, nor that it is in a derivative of the Arabic script. I am using early Arabic manuscripts as examples of what a text with this phenomenon looks like because they are they only texts that I know to exhibit this phenomenon.

[Dana Scott]

I'm not sure I understand you. Someone who understands a script with this phenomenon would intuit which letters would make sensible words in each context.

Regarding your statement, "You could add a way, like hide "12212" in the text which tells the reader the rule is option 1 then 2 and so on, repeating," the examples of Arabic with only the rasm do not have a key or code hidden in the manuscripts informing the reader on which letter is intended for each glyph; the reader must intuit the proper letter on a case-by-case basis.

"Is it possible that the reason that the Voynich script appears to have only 13 or so letters (when accounting for positional variation) is that multiple letters could use the same glyphs? This phenomenon can be found in early Arabic writing."

So you meant by this, "is it possible Voynich text is Arabic" then? I had mistook this as an example to further your idea of doubling use of characters.

I am not saying that the Voynich manuscript is in Arabic, nor that it is in a derivative of the Arabic script. I am using early Arabic manuscripts as examples of what a text with this phenomenon looks like because they are they only texts that I know to exhibit this phenomenon.

What examples in the Voynich manuscript text might exhibit this "phenomenon"?