26-05-2016, 04:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-05-2016, 04:37 PM by don of tallahassee.)
I'd like to make a few remarks about my proposed scheme to deconstruct the words found two or more times in the Voynich Manuscript.
The words are found throughout the manuscript. They comprise about 85% (rough estimate) of all the words in the manuscript - I've not been able to find any definitive number of exactly how many total words are in the VMS. The number varies from source to source. Nor have I added together all the times each of the duplicated words appears, to get a tally. Suffice it to say that a majority of the total words in the VMS deconstruct as I envision. Twelve exceptions out of more than 2,000 seems to show them to be exceptions, not a reason to chuck the whole scheme.
I don't need to change, move, eliminate, exchange or add any glyphs to make these perceived results happen. My main reason for this is that such seemingly questionable operations are not necessary, so why do them? There aren't any other examples of codes from the period that require these operations.
I use the words in the VMS that are repeated two or more times to help insure that few mistakes in transcribing the words are perpetuated because of ambiguities in the glyph identities.
The sequence of code groups (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) is followed in each example. The codes are found in the same places in each word, when present.
The sequence of deconstruction steps is followed for each word.
In all but the first group, the code groups are fairly small, and, within each word part (prefix - midfix - suffix), mostly exclusive. Yes, I know there are a few exceptions like a and o glyph characters, but not many within each word part.
I am not the first to think of such a scheme. Both Mrs. D'Imperio and Professor Stolfi beat me to it, and probably many others. And Roger Bacon.
I know many of the leading lights in the group trying to solve the puzzle of the VMS do not like that my scheme seems to show some way to construct and deconstruct the VMS words. For some of them, it would obviate years of work trying to find a solution using more modern techniques to account for an early Fifteenth Century manuscript. For others, that fact that the scheme cannot be made to fit any known language's words as a direct deciphering/transposition scheme of some sort or another is anathema. That's okay. They can think whatever they like. I'm only trying to convince those with open minds.
I don't think there are any known languages, actual or invented, that have words with the characteristics the VMS words show in construction/deconstruction.
The results seem to show a scheme with fairly simple relationships between the pieces that make it up. In actual use, it would be easy for anyone in on the secrets to be able to read/decode directly from the page without intervening steps or equipment. Only a key to the meanings of the code groups would be needed, maybe one that was memorized. 400 or 500 or 600 codes might not be too hard to memorize, especially if they might be coordinated with the code meanings in some way such as the codes being simple abbreviated reminders of the actual words being encoded. A code book or cheat sheet would make matters even simpler.
I don't know a lot about early Fifteenth Century codes. I don't think the VMS words directly correspond with any other known coded words of that date or before. Maybe I'm wrong about this - does anyone know of one?
I don't know of any other schemes by other people that seem to show a consistent way that the VMS words might be formed or constructed or any consistent way that the words might be deconstructed.
Yes, I know the elephant in the room with my scheme is the first group of codes being so large. I can't help that. The Group I codes seem to be in the words where I say they are. I didn't put them there. There is the possibility that they need to be decoded further, maybe into more groups or sub-groups. I doubt it.
The other code group tables seem to be more reasonable in size and membership. And they are consistently found in the VMS words where I say they should be found.
Check my work. I didn't fudge anything or leave out anything or change any words to make them fit my ideas (unless by accident or error or typo). I don't work that way. Heck, with the VMS words, I don't need to work that way.
Please notice I am not giving or implying any meanings with my deconstruction scheme. I am not even giving any hint of the language behind the words. Neither is relevant here. This is about the scheme.
The structure upon which the codes in the code groups are hung to form words is very rigid. The code group representatives always appear in the same order, if present - Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV, Group V, Group VI. The order of deconstruction is always the same. The words are formed the same way and from the same code groups throughout the VMS. This includes the Voynich A and Voynich B and label words - all of them.
A word or two about the VMS words that only appear once in the VMS - most of them also appear to deconstruct in the same manner using the same code tables.
The others that don't deconstruct successfully can mostly be made to deconstruct if more codes are added to the tables. This is most evident in the VMS words which contain glyphs not yet found any of the code groups - of course new codes would have to be added to include, into the scheme, words containing those glyphs.
Some VMS words that only appear once in the manuscript are blurry, indistinct or have other reasons for not being legible or having questionable transcriptions. I am presently working on a glyph/EVA transcription of the VMS showing which words are legible and which have questionable aspects to help alleviate this problem. Then I will tackle deconstructing the single-appearance VMS words. It'll be a while.
If it weren't that only twelve repeated words seem to fail to deconstruct, I would also look upon my proposed scheme with more doubt. But the other 2,000+ repeated words do deconstruct so consistently, don't they?
Whatever the reader decides about what it all means, I think I give a pretty good rationale, and show the proof, for thinking that my proposed scheme has a basis in fact, not supposition.
That's because I am trying to show what is real and true and can be proven.
I didn't write the Voynich Manuscript, but I think I can show how the words in it were constructed out of smaller parts. And I don't need to change/add/omit/rearrange/exchange any gylphs, nulls, spaces or words to do it.
I prefer to go by what's in the book.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
The words are found throughout the manuscript. They comprise about 85% (rough estimate) of all the words in the manuscript - I've not been able to find any definitive number of exactly how many total words are in the VMS. The number varies from source to source. Nor have I added together all the times each of the duplicated words appears, to get a tally. Suffice it to say that a majority of the total words in the VMS deconstruct as I envision. Twelve exceptions out of more than 2,000 seems to show them to be exceptions, not a reason to chuck the whole scheme.
I don't need to change, move, eliminate, exchange or add any glyphs to make these perceived results happen. My main reason for this is that such seemingly questionable operations are not necessary, so why do them? There aren't any other examples of codes from the period that require these operations.
I use the words in the VMS that are repeated two or more times to help insure that few mistakes in transcribing the words are perpetuated because of ambiguities in the glyph identities.
The sequence of code groups (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) is followed in each example. The codes are found in the same places in each word, when present.
The sequence of deconstruction steps is followed for each word.
In all but the first group, the code groups are fairly small, and, within each word part (prefix - midfix - suffix), mostly exclusive. Yes, I know there are a few exceptions like a and o glyph characters, but not many within each word part.
I am not the first to think of such a scheme. Both Mrs. D'Imperio and Professor Stolfi beat me to it, and probably many others. And Roger Bacon.
I know many of the leading lights in the group trying to solve the puzzle of the VMS do not like that my scheme seems to show some way to construct and deconstruct the VMS words. For some of them, it would obviate years of work trying to find a solution using more modern techniques to account for an early Fifteenth Century manuscript. For others, that fact that the scheme cannot be made to fit any known language's words as a direct deciphering/transposition scheme of some sort or another is anathema. That's okay. They can think whatever they like. I'm only trying to convince those with open minds.
I don't think there are any known languages, actual or invented, that have words with the characteristics the VMS words show in construction/deconstruction.
The results seem to show a scheme with fairly simple relationships between the pieces that make it up. In actual use, it would be easy for anyone in on the secrets to be able to read/decode directly from the page without intervening steps or equipment. Only a key to the meanings of the code groups would be needed, maybe one that was memorized. 400 or 500 or 600 codes might not be too hard to memorize, especially if they might be coordinated with the code meanings in some way such as the codes being simple abbreviated reminders of the actual words being encoded. A code book or cheat sheet would make matters even simpler.
I don't know a lot about early Fifteenth Century codes. I don't think the VMS words directly correspond with any other known coded words of that date or before. Maybe I'm wrong about this - does anyone know of one?
I don't know of any other schemes by other people that seem to show a consistent way that the VMS words might be formed or constructed or any consistent way that the words might be deconstructed.
Yes, I know the elephant in the room with my scheme is the first group of codes being so large. I can't help that. The Group I codes seem to be in the words where I say they are. I didn't put them there. There is the possibility that they need to be decoded further, maybe into more groups or sub-groups. I doubt it.
The other code group tables seem to be more reasonable in size and membership. And they are consistently found in the VMS words where I say they should be found.
Check my work. I didn't fudge anything or leave out anything or change any words to make them fit my ideas (unless by accident or error or typo). I don't work that way. Heck, with the VMS words, I don't need to work that way.
Please notice I am not giving or implying any meanings with my deconstruction scheme. I am not even giving any hint of the language behind the words. Neither is relevant here. This is about the scheme.
The structure upon which the codes in the code groups are hung to form words is very rigid. The code group representatives always appear in the same order, if present - Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV, Group V, Group VI. The order of deconstruction is always the same. The words are formed the same way and from the same code groups throughout the VMS. This includes the Voynich A and Voynich B and label words - all of them.
A word or two about the VMS words that only appear once in the VMS - most of them also appear to deconstruct in the same manner using the same code tables.
The others that don't deconstruct successfully can mostly be made to deconstruct if more codes are added to the tables. This is most evident in the VMS words which contain glyphs not yet found any of the code groups - of course new codes would have to be added to include, into the scheme, words containing those glyphs.
Some VMS words that only appear once in the manuscript are blurry, indistinct or have other reasons for not being legible or having questionable transcriptions. I am presently working on a glyph/EVA transcription of the VMS showing which words are legible and which have questionable aspects to help alleviate this problem. Then I will tackle deconstructing the single-appearance VMS words. It'll be a while.
If it weren't that only twelve repeated words seem to fail to deconstruct, I would also look upon my proposed scheme with more doubt. But the other 2,000+ repeated words do deconstruct so consistently, don't they?
Whatever the reader decides about what it all means, I think I give a pretty good rationale, and show the proof, for thinking that my proposed scheme has a basis in fact, not supposition.
That's because I am trying to show what is real and true and can be proven.
I didn't write the Voynich Manuscript, but I think I can show how the words in it were constructed out of smaller parts. And I don't need to change/add/omit/rearrange/exchange any gylphs, nulls, spaces or words to do it.
I prefer to go by what's in the book.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee