Voynich Decoded

[rikforto]

You are starting to provide a reproducible picture of your thinking. Perhaps we can nail down a few other parts of this.

Random word substitution wouldn't follow these rules. Your substitutions would create impossible glyph combinations the manuscript never shows, frequency distributions that don't match the actual data, and violations of the manuscript's internal logic.

Unless I misunderstand the key, placing my words in would result in the same distribution as your glosses. Or are you also manipulating the text beyond the substitutions you propose in the Sheets page?

Note that scrambling some of your glosses, e.g., flipping earth (EVA-eeee) and fire (EVA-e), would result in a viable code, as did the five (presumably incorrect!) proposals you made before the current one. Nowhere that I've seen have you attempted to explain how you know that the Voynich authors would have constructed it this way, and not any other.

For example, why does iiid exist but not iiiid? Why does iiiin exist but not iiiiin?

There are several conjectures for why the number of consecutive minima is constrained. The Roman Numeral hypothesis is one of them, but it also matches conventions in abbreviations in period manuscripts. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. It's not enough to offer a new conjecture, you need to logically establish that yours is the most plausible. I don't see any argument at all for minima to represent consonant intervals broadly or the ones you give, or how we'd establish that the author, who was a real person who designed this system, had these thoughts about intervals.

Why do we never see ff, tt, kk, or pp doubled? You can't have two planets together - no Saturn Saturn, no Mars Mars. What can Jupiter get between? Why the difference between upper and plagal tones? Why can only f, t, k, p get between ch?

These are good questions! The idea they are resolved if these are symbols for the planets is an interesting conjecture, and one probably worth exploring if someone can get a more grounded starting point, but you need significantly more than "they cannot appear in pairs" to establish the astrological connection here, and especially if you're going to assign them to particular planets within a particular period system. For instance "Divine Source" is not obviously a planet to me (is it a euphemism for Venus? if not, where is she?), yet is treated in line with three other classical planets. Mercury gets his own treatment, behaving differently, which I'm given to understand might have some precedent in some medical systems, but you need to establish that, and how the VM coheres to one system with that trait specifically. Likewise, if EVA-g is Mercury and Mercury has special significance, you need to establish why EVA-g and EVA-m is so divergent despite strong visual similarity. Despite a good deal of unjustified specificity, the system as presented is also fantastically vague about where it gets those and other details from.

I worked this out through frequency counts, positional analysis, pairing matrices, and structural constraints. The glyphs follow rules - certain combinations never appear, certain positions are fixed, certain maximums exist.

Publishing the logic you used to work this out would make the pages you are posting transparent, or at least explain why they are so opaque as they stand. This, rather than the interpretations, will be the beating heart of your solution if my suspicions are wrong and the glosses you've provided really can be logically demonstrated. This will make it possible to evaluate the glosses one way or the other.