02-08-2017, 10:03 PM
All this is a result of working 'backwards', i.e. to try to convert the Voynich text to plain text, instead of the other way round.
When one sets ones mind to thinking in the correct direction (i.e. converting from an unknown plain text to the Voynich text), one will quickly realise that the table of translation that is proposed makes no sense.
One has to turn the translation table around.
This means:
- occurances of 'cus' were encoded as Eva-b
- 'per' as Eva-f
- 'cis' as Eva-g
(skipping)
- 'ap' as Eva-q
etc. etc.
These are just a very minor subset of possible Latin bi- and trigraphs.
What a coincidence that these occurred so often in the plain text, that they deserved to be rendered by a single and frequently occurring character.
One of the most common mistakes in all proposed solutions.
When one sets ones mind to thinking in the correct direction (i.e. converting from an unknown plain text to the Voynich text), one will quickly realise that the table of translation that is proposed makes no sense.
One has to turn the translation table around.
This means:
- occurances of 'cus' were encoded as Eva-b
- 'per' as Eva-f
- 'cis' as Eva-g
(skipping)
- 'ap' as Eva-q
etc. etc.
These are just a very minor subset of possible Latin bi- and trigraphs.
What a coincidence that these occurred so often in the plain text, that they deserved to be rendered by a single and frequently occurring character.
One of the most common mistakes in all proposed solutions.