02-10-2016, 10:09 PM
Sorry, am I missing something or is the only correlation between your Voynichese and its Welsh translation the fact that they have the same numerology sum? Because that is basically anagramming and we all know where that leads us.
Also, you seem to be missing some Voynich glyphs, there are several more commonly accepted glyphs not reflected in your table.
I'd also suggest that a 16th century Welshman (or even Mr Dee himself) who invented a new script which transliterated Welsh into this script wouldn't be using a flat modern numerology table... they'd be using a gematria instead.
So your theory is that the scribe who invented the new script dropped eight letters whilst doing so (the medieval Welsh alphabet, whilst Roman, doubled up on letters to reach a 29 letter alphabet, but you only have 22 glyphs). He then decided not to use a direct correlation between the Welsh numerology encoding table and the Voynichese one. Finally, he didn't use gematria but a flat numerology table instead.
Sorry, not buying it.
Also, you seem to be missing some Voynich glyphs, there are several more commonly accepted glyphs not reflected in your table.
I'd also suggest that a 16th century Welshman (or even Mr Dee himself) who invented a new script which transliterated Welsh into this script wouldn't be using a flat modern numerology table... they'd be using a gematria instead.
So your theory is that the scribe who invented the new script dropped eight letters whilst doing so (the medieval Welsh alphabet, whilst Roman, doubled up on letters to reach a 29 letter alphabet, but you only have 22 glyphs). He then decided not to use a direct correlation between the Welsh numerology encoding table and the Voynichese one. Finally, he didn't use gematria but a flat numerology table instead.
Sorry, not buying it.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)