21-04-2021, 03:57 PM
In this post I want to discuss how the Middle English / Anglo-Norman Yorkist theory may explain certain features of the Voynich manuscript text.
Dialects A & B:
It seems likely to me that one Dialect, I hypothesize A, may possibly have more of an English base with English function words, whereas the other Dialect, I hypothesize B, may possibly have more of a French base with French function words. In the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , a page which is identified as written in Dialect A, key functions words such as the possessive pronoun "ir" ("her") and the preposition "thurgh" ("through") are Middle English. In contrast, in the center ring of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -- a page for which the Dialect has not yet been identified, as I understand it -- a key function word, the preposition+article contraction "del", is Old French. In the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line, I identify 5 words as English, 3 words as Latin, and only 1 word as French (the plant name "Cassytha" is translingual). In the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line, so far I identify 3 words as French, 4 words as English (if one includes "York"), and 1 word as Latin, but at least the first of the 2 words of uncertain origin that I have not completely deciphered yet ("KpisK") looks more Romance than English to me, if it is related to Italian "capisci". In any case, the line in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has much more French in it than the line in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does. This distinction may well be the explanation for the striking differences that have long been identified between the languages of the Dialect A and Dialect B pages and sections.
Line structure features:
The structure of the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is quite revealing: it begins with a two-word epithet, then it contains a little message, then it ends with the name of a plant as the last word, which is intended to be read backwards. If every line or most lines, at least in the Herbal sections, are like this, then the author would have more control over the initial letters of lines, choosing these letters in some "acrostic" pattern (certain letters in a certain order), for example, or whatever pattern they wished to use. Likewise for the last word of each line, its final letter, etc. Based on the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , it may possibly be the case that what appears to be the "last letter" of each line is actually the first letter of the last word, quite possibly the plant name, since in every example so far the last word in a line is intended to be read backwards.
Word structure features:
It appears that the cipher was designed so that certain words are intended to be read forwards and other words are intended to be read backwards. It may prove to be the case, I hypothesize, that word structure was designed so that words beginning or ending with certain letters would almost always be intended to be read forwards, and words beginning or ending with certain other letters would almost always be intended to be read backwards. In this way, the cipher designers were able to create the appearance of a certain set of characters and combinations almost always appearing at the beginnings of words, and another set of characters and combinations almost always appearing at the ends of words. In this way the cipher designers may have been able to create the appearance of extremely repetitive word structure if one reads all words in the same direction.
Example: I now read the second of the two Voynich script words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as EVA [sheey] = "theeK" = Middle English "geth", a past participle form of the verb "geten" (i.e., "get"). (See my most recent post in the "In pursuit of otol" thread for my analysis of the words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .) Middle English had many such verb forms with final "-th", most famously the 3rd person singular present tense verb ending "-eth". We never see such forms in the Voynich manuscript text with final EVA [-esh] = "-eth", because such word forms must all be written backwards according to the rules of the cipher. Therefore they rather appear in the text with initial EVA [she-] = "the-". This makes such word forms appear to look very similar to the words which actually do begin with "the-" in English, which are written in this cipher in the normal forwards order, not backwards. For English speakers who know the cipher rules, this does not actually create as much ambiguity as one might think at first, because English does not have many words with a structure such as "thek" or "theg", so when one sees a word written as "theeK", one knows it must be intended to be read backwards. Of course the occasional set of "Voynich English homonyms" is possible, such as "thick", "thigh", and "kith", all of which I hypothesize would be written in the Voynich script as EVA [shchy] = "thyK". (This word actually appears 5 times in the manuscript.) I note in passing that a preference for EVA [ch] = "y" over EVA [a] = "i" in such words would be consistent with the Yorkist theme of preferring the letters of the word "YORK" = EVA [chory].
Also, the "syllabic" nature of the EVA [y] = "K" character, since it may represent "k" or "c" or "g" or "gh" and since it may include an unwritten vowel, facilitates the appearance of identical "word endings" in particular: a large number of different letters and syllables may be represented by this one character, and moreover many of them are actually word-initial, when the word is intended to be read backwards, rather than actually word-final. On the other hand, other character combinations reflect features of a "verbose cipher", as indeed astute analysts such as Rene, Marco, Koen, and others have long suspected, if I have understood their analysis correctly. For instance, [ot] = "f", [ok] = "d", etc., are examples of such verbose cipher representations of single letters. I also observe here that it may not be an accident that the Yorkist cipher designers chose EVA [o], a letter in "YORK", to serve as the "verbose" additional character in such combinations. Indeed it appears they followed the same principle in the choice of EVA [ch], another letter in "YORK", to serve as the basis of character combinations such as EVA [cth] = "m". The purpose would be to make the characters of the word EVA [chory] = "YORK" appear in the text as abundantly as possible. Moreover, it appears that they chose the typical forwards/backwards directions of words so that [ch] would very frequently appear in word-initial position, as in "YORK", and [y] would very frequently appear in word-final position, also as in "YORK".
Geoffrey
Dialects A & B:
It seems likely to me that one Dialect, I hypothesize A, may possibly have more of an English base with English function words, whereas the other Dialect, I hypothesize B, may possibly have more of a French base with French function words. In the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , a page which is identified as written in Dialect A, key functions words such as the possessive pronoun "ir" ("her") and the preposition "thurgh" ("through") are Middle English. In contrast, in the center ring of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -- a page for which the Dialect has not yet been identified, as I understand it -- a key function word, the preposition+article contraction "del", is Old French. In the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line, I identify 5 words as English, 3 words as Latin, and only 1 word as French (the plant name "Cassytha" is translingual). In the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. line, so far I identify 3 words as French, 4 words as English (if one includes "York"), and 1 word as Latin, but at least the first of the 2 words of uncertain origin that I have not completely deciphered yet ("KpisK") looks more Romance than English to me, if it is related to Italian "capisci". In any case, the line in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has much more French in it than the line in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does. This distinction may well be the explanation for the striking differences that have long been identified between the languages of the Dialect A and Dialect B pages and sections.
Line structure features:
The structure of the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is quite revealing: it begins with a two-word epithet, then it contains a little message, then it ends with the name of a plant as the last word, which is intended to be read backwards. If every line or most lines, at least in the Herbal sections, are like this, then the author would have more control over the initial letters of lines, choosing these letters in some "acrostic" pattern (certain letters in a certain order), for example, or whatever pattern they wished to use. Likewise for the last word of each line, its final letter, etc. Based on the first line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , it may possibly be the case that what appears to be the "last letter" of each line is actually the first letter of the last word, quite possibly the plant name, since in every example so far the last word in a line is intended to be read backwards.
Word structure features:
It appears that the cipher was designed so that certain words are intended to be read forwards and other words are intended to be read backwards. It may prove to be the case, I hypothesize, that word structure was designed so that words beginning or ending with certain letters would almost always be intended to be read forwards, and words beginning or ending with certain other letters would almost always be intended to be read backwards. In this way, the cipher designers were able to create the appearance of a certain set of characters and combinations almost always appearing at the beginnings of words, and another set of characters and combinations almost always appearing at the ends of words. In this way the cipher designers may have been able to create the appearance of extremely repetitive word structure if one reads all words in the same direction.
Example: I now read the second of the two Voynich script words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as EVA [sheey] = "theeK" = Middle English "geth", a past participle form of the verb "geten" (i.e., "get"). (See my most recent post in the "In pursuit of otol" thread for my analysis of the words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .) Middle English had many such verb forms with final "-th", most famously the 3rd person singular present tense verb ending "-eth". We never see such forms in the Voynich manuscript text with final EVA [-esh] = "-eth", because such word forms must all be written backwards according to the rules of the cipher. Therefore they rather appear in the text with initial EVA [she-] = "the-". This makes such word forms appear to look very similar to the words which actually do begin with "the-" in English, which are written in this cipher in the normal forwards order, not backwards. For English speakers who know the cipher rules, this does not actually create as much ambiguity as one might think at first, because English does not have many words with a structure such as "thek" or "theg", so when one sees a word written as "theeK", one knows it must be intended to be read backwards. Of course the occasional set of "Voynich English homonyms" is possible, such as "thick", "thigh", and "kith", all of which I hypothesize would be written in the Voynich script as EVA [shchy] = "thyK". (This word actually appears 5 times in the manuscript.) I note in passing that a preference for EVA [ch] = "y" over EVA [a] = "i" in such words would be consistent with the Yorkist theme of preferring the letters of the word "YORK" = EVA [chory].
Also, the "syllabic" nature of the EVA [y] = "K" character, since it may represent "k" or "c" or "g" or "gh" and since it may include an unwritten vowel, facilitates the appearance of identical "word endings" in particular: a large number of different letters and syllables may be represented by this one character, and moreover many of them are actually word-initial, when the word is intended to be read backwards, rather than actually word-final. On the other hand, other character combinations reflect features of a "verbose cipher", as indeed astute analysts such as Rene, Marco, Koen, and others have long suspected, if I have understood their analysis correctly. For instance, [ot] = "f", [ok] = "d", etc., are examples of such verbose cipher representations of single letters. I also observe here that it may not be an accident that the Yorkist cipher designers chose EVA [o], a letter in "YORK", to serve as the "verbose" additional character in such combinations. Indeed it appears they followed the same principle in the choice of EVA [ch], another letter in "YORK", to serve as the basis of character combinations such as EVA [cth] = "m". The purpose would be to make the characters of the word EVA [chory] = "YORK" appear in the text as abundantly as possible. Moreover, it appears that they chose the typical forwards/backwards directions of words so that [ch] would very frequently appear in word-initial position, as in "YORK", and [y] would very frequently appear in word-final position, also as in "YORK".
Geoffrey