21-09-2020, 02:21 AM
I would also like to share with the forum two examples of prior efforts of mine to decipher the Voynich ms that incorporated certain elements of a verbose cipher. I never published either one, here or elsewhere, and I now consider them obsolete. They represent efforts prior to my Judaeo-Greek theory that I wrote about extensively on this forum last year. But it may be of interest to some researchers to examine the ways in which I considered analyzing certain combinations of glyphs as a verbose cipher.
The first example was an attempted decryption of the Voynich ms text as Syriac or Aramaic. The only really distinctive verbose cipher elements in it were [ot], [ok], and [eo]. In general, the theory suffered from the same problem of ambiguity as my later Judaeo-Greek theory. In case you are wondering about the motivation for the Syriac letters that I grouped together, they were based on the shapes of the letters in the Syriac script rather than on phonological principles as in the Judaeo-Greek analysis.
The second example was the attempted decryption of the Voynich ms text as Hebrew, the failure of which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a commentary on Hannig's recent Hebrew theory of the Voynich ms. This was an attempt at a more extensive verbose cipher, where almost every correspondence is with a Voynich bigram rather than a single glyph. Note the presence of many of the bigrams in Koen's analysis that created a 3.01 h2 conditional entropy: [ok], [ot], [od], [ol], [or], [al], [ar]. The problem with this theory was not so much ambiguity, but rather the incorrect correspondence of certain key letters in basic words with classical Hebrew spelling, the problematic nature of which a Hebrew scholar pointed out to me, as I described in my post about Hannig's theory cited above.
The first example was an attempted decryption of the Voynich ms text as Syriac or Aramaic. The only really distinctive verbose cipher elements in it were [ot], [ok], and [eo]. In general, the theory suffered from the same problem of ambiguity as my later Judaeo-Greek theory. In case you are wondering about the motivation for the Syriac letters that I grouped together, they were based on the shapes of the letters in the Syriac script rather than on phonological principles as in the Judaeo-Greek analysis.
The second example was the attempted decryption of the Voynich ms text as Hebrew, the failure of which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a commentary on Hannig's recent Hebrew theory of the Voynich ms. This was an attempt at a more extensive verbose cipher, where almost every correspondence is with a Voynich bigram rather than a single glyph. Note the presence of many of the bigrams in Koen's analysis that created a 3.01 h2 conditional entropy: [ok], [ot], [od], [ol], [or], [al], [ar]. The problem with this theory was not so much ambiguity, but rather the incorrect correspondence of certain key letters in basic words with classical Hebrew spelling, the problematic nature of which a Hebrew scholar pointed out to me, as I described in my post about Hannig's theory cited above.