I am not sure this has been mentioned yet. Though I can't find the original post at the moment, I think it was Rene who pointed out that solvers should focus on the encoding process, rather than decoding. They should define a repeatable encoding process and encode a couple of short historical plain-texts in the source language; it is then possible to check that the results feature all the properties of Voynichese, e.g.:
I think that doing this on two 500 word texts should be enough for an initial evaluation. This could possibly be equivalent to Nablator's point about the predictive power of a theory.
This method totally removes the problem of the meaningfulness of the source text. One encodes historical texts which are known to be meaningful and grammatical.
- low character entropy
- zipfian distribution of words
- frequent repetition of identical words
- even more frequent consecutive similar words
- binomial distribution of dictionary word lengths
- constrained paragraph distributions for p f
- paragraph initial words with a preference for starting with t k p f
- constrained line distributions for m g
- words that mostly adhere to Stolfi's grammar
- a tendency for final y to be followed by the q prefix
- 'dialects' with largely different bigram distributions
- ...add you own favourite Voynicese properties
I think that doing this on two 500 word texts should be enough for an initial evaluation. This could possibly be equivalent to Nablator's point about the predictive power of a theory.
This method totally removes the problem of the meaningfulness of the source text. One encodes historical texts which are known to be meaningful and grammatical.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)