31-03-2019, 10:08 PM
David and JKP,
I propose that the author of the Voynich MS first did a many to one transliteration, for example Greek mu / Judaeo-Greek mem and Greek nu / Judaeo-Greek nun were merged into the single Voynich character [l].
But then, as a following step, the author made the text more of a cipher by applying the principles of a so-called homophonic substitution cipher, such as the familiar nomenclator ciphers. That is, such a cipher creates multiple character representations of each single letter. There is a known example of a homophonic substitution cipher employed in 1401, from Mantua, so such a method is not necessarily anachronistic for the Voynich MS.
By employing a many-to-one encryption step, followed by a homophonic substitution encryption step, the end result is that any of the original set of letters may end up being represented as any of the cipher text set of homophonic substitution characters.
The entire process may be visualized as follows:
Step 1: {mu/mem, nu/nun} > [l]
Step 2: [l] > { [l], [sh] with closed loop, final [(i)in] }
I hope that my explanation of this process is clear.
=======
JKP, I would like to cite one particular example that makes me suspect that the process may have involved a deliberate homophonic substitution cipher step:
If it is not a deliberate homophonic substitution cipher, then you will not like the discrepancy between [sh2ky] as "mythous" and [lkechy] as "mythois" (pronounced "mithis") on the very same line. This does not appear to be a natural substitution in a typical manuscript text, such as the German examples that you cite. (I do note that I interpret [sh2], with a closed loop on top, as really just a ligature of [l+ch], but still I suspect you will not like this alternation on the same line.)
But if it is a deliberate homophonic substitution cipher, then it makes perfect sense for the author to encrypt the two instances of the same word on the same line with two different homophonic substitution characters for the same letter. This is precisely how such ciphers were intended to make the text more difficult for the uninitiated to decipher and read.
The initiated reader who knows the cipher, on the other hand, can easily undo the homophonic substitution step, and easily identify the two words as the same. Then the whole text is reduced to the result of a many to one transliteration, which is perfectly natural for many languages such as Greek, as David points out.
Geoffrey
I propose that the author of the Voynich MS first did a many to one transliteration, for example Greek mu / Judaeo-Greek mem and Greek nu / Judaeo-Greek nun were merged into the single Voynich character [l].
But then, as a following step, the author made the text more of a cipher by applying the principles of a so-called homophonic substitution cipher, such as the familiar nomenclator ciphers. That is, such a cipher creates multiple character representations of each single letter. There is a known example of a homophonic substitution cipher employed in 1401, from Mantua, so such a method is not necessarily anachronistic for the Voynich MS.
By employing a many-to-one encryption step, followed by a homophonic substitution encryption step, the end result is that any of the original set of letters may end up being represented as any of the cipher text set of homophonic substitution characters.
The entire process may be visualized as follows:
Step 1: {mu/mem, nu/nun} > [l]
Step 2: [l] > { [l], [sh] with closed loop, final [(i)in] }
I hope that my explanation of this process is clear.
=======
JKP, I would like to cite one particular example that makes me suspect that the process may have involved a deliberate homophonic substitution cipher step:
If it is not a deliberate homophonic substitution cipher, then you will not like the discrepancy between [sh2ky] as "mythous" and [lkechy] as "mythois" (pronounced "mithis") on the very same line. This does not appear to be a natural substitution in a typical manuscript text, such as the German examples that you cite. (I do note that I interpret [sh2], with a closed loop on top, as really just a ligature of [l+ch], but still I suspect you will not like this alternation on the same line.)
But if it is a deliberate homophonic substitution cipher, then it makes perfect sense for the author to encrypt the two instances of the same word on the same line with two different homophonic substitution characters for the same letter. This is precisely how such ciphers were intended to make the text more difficult for the uninitiated to decipher and read.
The initiated reader who knows the cipher, on the other hand, can easily undo the homophonic substitution step, and easily identify the two words as the same. Then the whole text is reduced to the result of a many to one transliteration, which is perfectly natural for many languages such as Greek, as David points out.
Geoffrey