03-01-2026, 09:28 PM
Thank you for this refreshing (and LLM-free!) first post!
To be fair, EVA was constructed with the express purpose to be able to talk in a more human-friendly and typing-friendly way about Voynichese. otaiin is just easier to work with for a person typing and reading than 0#a111. In a way it became too successful, because as you point out, it makes the thing seem more alphabet-like than it actually is.
The resemblance to numerical and non-alphabetical characters has been remarked before, but I'm not sure if many people are aware of it to this extent. You present it in a pretty clear and structured way.
Now EVA-v is extremely rare, and I wouldn't take it into account for something like this. So you're looking at potential allusions to 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9.
Then there's the fact that Voynichese glyphs sort themselves in a word in a way similar to Roman numerals. This gives you EVA e, ch... as potential C (100).
The question would be if any of that is relevant, and where to go from there...
To be fair, EVA was constructed with the express purpose to be able to talk in a more human-friendly and typing-friendly way about Voynichese. otaiin is just easier to work with for a person typing and reading than 0#a111. In a way it became too successful, because as you point out, it makes the thing seem more alphabet-like than it actually is.
The resemblance to numerical and non-alphabetical characters has been remarked before, but I'm not sure if many people are aware of it to this extent. You present it in a pretty clear and structured way.
Now EVA-v is extremely rare, and I wouldn't take it into account for something like this. So you're looking at potential allusions to 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9.
Then there's the fact that Voynichese glyphs sort themselves in a word in a way similar to Roman numerals. This gives you EVA e, ch... as potential C (100).
The question would be if any of that is relevant, and where to go from there...