13-01-2026, 05:57 PM
@ Stefan Wirtz_2, apologies again for the confusion caused by the way what I had in v101 (copied directly from there, not my invention) was rendered in this forum software font differently, so some characters in Voynich I tried to render are not what is found in the original.
I did not mean that the first word example I gave was an actual signature (hence saying “seeming signature”). I said so just because it was easier to note what word I was referring to. On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. some words do stand out in the original as if they are signatures, which is why I said that. Each paragraph is followed by a “word” justified to the right, “as if” it is a signature, not that it is, because we don’t know what the word means.
@ nablator, thanks much for bringing that into my attention. In the “A” font choice on the forum post box, there is only one choice for Voynich (the first choice), so not sure where I can choose the “font=Voynich” (perhaps I need to do it in the code display of the post, not sure). I am inclined not to try again and things go wrong, causing more confusion. So, I am copying below those three paragraphs without using the Voynich font, and just referring to the transliteration versions.
Perhaps the moderator can just replace those three paragraphs in my previous post with these (between the dashed lines) to avoid further confusion. The problem was caused by the fact that this was my first time trying to add Voynich fonts, and I could not actually see the fonts before posting to make sure it is accurate, and we don’t have access to edit the posts ourselves to correct mishaps like this, as far as I know.
---
The first word is the seeming signature of the first paragraph on the first page (f1r), one that using the GC v101 and his fonts, renders as 98ayai29 . The other word is on the first line of the second paragraph on that first page, the word being o98ay.!?s (this is how v101 renders it, not mine). I have chosen this word intentionally as an illegible word, given the question mark, to represent words in the manuscript we cannot read reliably, which is itself an insurmountable limitation). The third word is just the one following it rendered in v101 as Foam since it includes one of those gallows.
Thanks to ReneZ’s page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. we can consider how these words have been “transliterated”. I do not wish to make this post any longer than it is necessary, and here I will just be schematic. We can see that the letter that looks like 9 has been rendered as 9 or G or g or y, the letter that looks like 8 has been rendered as 8 or S or d, the letter a as a, the letter o as o, the letter that looks like 2 as 2 or Q or r or y, the letter that looks like an i (without dot) as i or the letter that looks like m as n or m or n. I realize at times the same transliterated letters have been used to denote a different Voynich character, and each transliteration system has to be considered on its own for representing Voynich characters, and they can be "translated" to one another, if one wishes to do so. I understand that these are just transliteration systems.
But then we have letters that looks like ! or 2 (in v101 as distinguished in GC font also), and there are double c’s without the diacritic in Voynich, or with different diacritics. Some scholars have seen these as representing rendered as an ‘s’ and or a ‘z’ looking letter (rendered as ‘h’) or for the non-diacritic version like a c (with longer top) and a ‘z’ looking letter (both rendered as ‘sh’ if with diacritic and ch if without diacritic in transliteration), which can be separated as found in the character F which is then rendered as a ‘cfh’. And my head is being scratched now.
---
I did not mean that the first word example I gave was an actual signature (hence saying “seeming signature”). I said so just because it was easier to note what word I was referring to. On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. some words do stand out in the original as if they are signatures, which is why I said that. Each paragraph is followed by a “word” justified to the right, “as if” it is a signature, not that it is, because we don’t know what the word means.
@ nablator, thanks much for bringing that into my attention. In the “A” font choice on the forum post box, there is only one choice for Voynich (the first choice), so not sure where I can choose the “font=Voynich” (perhaps I need to do it in the code display of the post, not sure). I am inclined not to try again and things go wrong, causing more confusion. So, I am copying below those three paragraphs without using the Voynich font, and just referring to the transliteration versions.
Perhaps the moderator can just replace those three paragraphs in my previous post with these (between the dashed lines) to avoid further confusion. The problem was caused by the fact that this was my first time trying to add Voynich fonts, and I could not actually see the fonts before posting to make sure it is accurate, and we don’t have access to edit the posts ourselves to correct mishaps like this, as far as I know.
---
The first word is the seeming signature of the first paragraph on the first page (f1r), one that using the GC v101 and his fonts, renders as 98ayai29 . The other word is on the first line of the second paragraph on that first page, the word being o98ay.!?s (this is how v101 renders it, not mine). I have chosen this word intentionally as an illegible word, given the question mark, to represent words in the manuscript we cannot read reliably, which is itself an insurmountable limitation). The third word is just the one following it rendered in v101 as Foam since it includes one of those gallows.
Thanks to ReneZ’s page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. we can consider how these words have been “transliterated”. I do not wish to make this post any longer than it is necessary, and here I will just be schematic. We can see that the letter that looks like 9 has been rendered as 9 or G or g or y, the letter that looks like 8 has been rendered as 8 or S or d, the letter a as a, the letter o as o, the letter that looks like 2 as 2 or Q or r or y, the letter that looks like an i (without dot) as i or the letter that looks like m as n or m or n. I realize at times the same transliterated letters have been used to denote a different Voynich character, and each transliteration system has to be considered on its own for representing Voynich characters, and they can be "translated" to one another, if one wishes to do so. I understand that these are just transliteration systems.
But then we have letters that looks like ! or 2 (in v101 as distinguished in GC font also), and there are double c’s without the diacritic in Voynich, or with different diacritics. Some scholars have seen these as representing rendered as an ‘s’ and or a ‘z’ looking letter (rendered as ‘h’) or for the non-diacritic version like a c (with longer top) and a ‘z’ looking letter (both rendered as ‘sh’ if with diacritic and ch if without diacritic in transliteration), which can be separated as found in the character F which is then rendered as a ‘cfh’. And my head is being scratched now.
---