I've found the author of Voynich manuscript. He was Giovanni Aurispa.

[tavie]

Ugh it just ate my very long reply.   I will try to reconstruct it and hope that doesn't make it even longer or less coherent...(spoiler: it did)

The word Balaustiis can not be translated as abluistis or ebulliistis as tavie suggested, because the word do not start with vowel symbol. ( as I mentioned in my previous post about ciphers rules )

Sorry!  I missed that.  I saw that some words like axos, exemeristi, auxeras had a vowel added to their start, but I somehow missed that they all had x in common.  Apologies!

If i just use my ciphers alone ( without the rules) the translation would be BLSTS not Balaustiis. 
As I mentioned in my previous post, if we browse the manuscript we will find stand alone symbol, for example we can find some of letter ST symbol. This one symbol should have meaning, that is to form a word. So, if i use my ciphers alone the translation would be ST. It does not have any meaning, for that reason this symbol should have vowel that follows even though no vowel symbol written.

I don't have any issue with the idea of an abjad.  Linguists have taken that possibility seriously.  The problem is that  - unless there are further rules I've missed - you have the flexibility of adding any vowel, including dipthongs, almost whenever you like...and it still does not result in viable Latin.  I don't mean that it produces sloppy Latin that an expert could refine with a few tweaks.  The output of your system is not Latin.  Radically changing the output so that it resembles viable Latin would be yet a further distortion of the system, adding more degrees of freedom, and make your results even less repeatable.   I'll explain what I mean with a few mock scenarios to draw out the distinction between different types of decipherment:

Let's imagine I've discovered that the manuscript is actually written in enciphered English.  I have used my system to translate part of folio 2r as follows:

This herb is Centaurea.  There are small blue flowers.  The leaves are grey and green and shaped like a lance.  Commonly found in fields of corn.  To be gathered when Saturn is in Aries.  For healing wounds and against poison. 

How did I arrive at this translation?  Let's consider the output of three systems, which I'll put in quote boxes.

Scenario A:  my system produces the above text.  The output matches the Voynichese words exactly to the above.  There is no ambiguity, or other options for word matches.  When Marco uses my system on 2r, he produces the exact same output.

This would receive interest!  It wouldn't be accepted (yet).  But it would be a startling coincidence for several words associated with Centaurea to feature in a folio suspected to be about Centaurea, when my system gave me no choice about those words and spat them out in fairly grammatical, coherent English.  Startling coincidences do happen, but this system would be deemed worthy of further analysis. 
 

Scenario B:  by itself, my system does not produce the exact words of the above translation.  I have to step in and help.  I usually have to add extra letters. A lot of them.  There are little to no rules about which letter is added and when, or when not.  I chose some of the words above out of a range of 3-5 choices.  For others, I had around 20 options.  For some, I had far more than 20.  With this flexibility, I arrive at the above translation.  But when Marco uses my system on 2r, he either chooses completely different words to mine, or he feel unable to choose. 

I've produced the same results in both Scenario A and Scenario B.  But the Scenario B results are much less impressive because they were produced more by my mind than by my system.  Those startling words like "centaurea" and "blue" no longer look so startling when you consider that I gave myself over 35 options for each word through my ability to add letters.  The more flexibility I give myself with letters, the more candidates for word matches I have to choose from.  I am casting a very wide net, and so I am likely to find the fish I want.  My mind is primed to select a word that has something to do with centaurea.  Marco's is not, and so he has an entirely different output. My solution is not repeatable by other people.  Unless I can find new rules to reduce the degrees of freedom and produce strong results in other folios, it is almost certainly wrong. 

Scenario C:  the same as B except it does not produce the coherent translation above.  Under this scenario, my output does not make grammatical sense; some of the words are not actually English; some are English but are given meanings that are not correct but fit the theme.  It is a "word salad".

This scenario suffers from the same problems as Scenario B...and more:  even with all that flexibility, I have failed to produce a coherent translation.  The output is not close to being recognizable English sentences.  If I tried to rewrite it into sensible English, this is again my mind producing the output, not my system.  My system is undoubtedly wrong.


We have never seen a Scenario A for the Voynich.  To the best of my knowledge, there has not even been a Scenario B.  There have only been Scenario Cs, and solutions that don't even make it up to Scenario C because there are no translations of full paragraphs or even sentences.