I have no comment to make on the authorship theory, but your solution to the text is not a correct decipherment. The good points in your favour are that unlike 95% of solvers, you have tackled full sentences and even paragraphs, and you've tried to find a solution to the "m" problem.
But the Latin that your system has produced is not recognizable Latin. Moreover, Voynichese cannot be a simple substitution cypher, i.e. it has to be far more complex than a 1:1 mapping. Even a flexible abjad one which your system appears to be. This is due to various unlanguage-like patterns such as glyphs behaving differently depending on the position in the line and paragraph, and especially the entropy problem which Koen explains very clearly You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Your system and pictures are also missing a step or line of reasoning: e.g. your picture depicts your system as going from EVA fy to Latin "nos", but this is not the case. It is actually going from EVA fy to "ns", and there is a hidden step of adding in an "o". There do not appear to be any rules in your system as to what vowel gets added and when. Moreover, your system states that there are also unhidden vowels in the text: EVA a, e, o, and i, but their values also seem flexible. In the first two lines alone, you have EVA o as standing for "oi", "u", "o", and "ii". You also have EVA a as standing for "ui", "e", "a", and "eo". All this introduces too many degrees of freedom, meaning different people using the system will have different results, and making it easy for your confirmation bias to take hold.
I'm attaching a version of your first pic to illustrate this extra hidden step and vowel issue.
I would suggest you have a read of rival solutions. All solutions tend to make the same mistakes, and so these threads are useful reading. They usually have comments pointing out the common problems in solutions; giving helpful explanations about the line patterns and Voynichese behaviour that solutions rarely attempt to account for; and showing how confirmation bias makes every "solver" so convinced they have deciphered the manuscript. We could probably do with a separate section in the forum for "solutions", but threads from the past few years that come to mind are:
But the Latin that your system has produced is not recognizable Latin. Moreover, Voynichese cannot be a simple substitution cypher, i.e. it has to be far more complex than a 1:1 mapping. Even a flexible abjad one which your system appears to be. This is due to various unlanguage-like patterns such as glyphs behaving differently depending on the position in the line and paragraph, and especially the entropy problem which Koen explains very clearly You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Your system and pictures are also missing a step or line of reasoning: e.g. your picture depicts your system as going from EVA fy to Latin "nos", but this is not the case. It is actually going from EVA fy to "ns", and there is a hidden step of adding in an "o". There do not appear to be any rules in your system as to what vowel gets added and when. Moreover, your system states that there are also unhidden vowels in the text: EVA a, e, o, and i, but their values also seem flexible. In the first two lines alone, you have EVA o as standing for "oi", "u", "o", and "ii". You also have EVA a as standing for "ui", "e", "a", and "eo". All this introduces too many degrees of freedom, meaning different people using the system will have different results, and making it easy for your confirmation bias to take hold.
I'm attaching a version of your first pic to illustrate this extra hidden step and vowel issue.
I would suggest you have a read of rival solutions. All solutions tend to make the same mistakes, and so these threads are useful reading. They usually have comments pointing out the common problems in solutions; giving helpful explanations about the line patterns and Voynichese behaviour that solutions rarely attempt to account for; and showing how confirmation bias makes every "solver" so convinced they have deciphered the manuscript. We could probably do with a separate section in the forum for "solutions", but threads from the past few years that come to mind are:
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (this should be particularly useful for you)
- Cheshire's "Proto-Romance" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)