19-03-2026, 01:46 PM
Thank you for these detailed questions — they’re exactly the kind of scrutiny I hoped for.
1. Baseline chance (3–5%): This figure comes from prior statistical work (e.g., Reddy & Knight, 2011) showing that random strings under simple substitution yield valid Arabic roots at about 3–5%. I used that as the comparison baseline for blind tests. I can provide the calculation references if helpful.
2. Grammar skeleton and “qok-” words: You’re right that the skeleton defines recurring prefixes/suffixes. The key point is that these were derived statistically from Voynich text frequencies before consulting any medical sources. The “qok-” family was then tested against independent Arabic dosage formulas. So the matches aren’t just circular — they’re checked against external linguistic and medical patterns.
3. Sentence line mismatch: Good catch. The EVA transcription used in the decoding is correct (“shol cthom chor cthy”), but the figure caption mistakenly highlighted the wrong line in the folio image. That was a formatting error in Version 5 of the paper, not a change in the decoded sentence itself. I’ll correct that in the next revision.
I appreciate you pointing these out — replication and critique are the only way this hypothesis can be tested properly.
1. Baseline chance (3–5%): This figure comes from prior statistical work (e.g., Reddy & Knight, 2011) showing that random strings under simple substitution yield valid Arabic roots at about 3–5%. I used that as the comparison baseline for blind tests. I can provide the calculation references if helpful.
2. Grammar skeleton and “qok-” words: You’re right that the skeleton defines recurring prefixes/suffixes. The key point is that these were derived statistically from Voynich text frequencies before consulting any medical sources. The “qok-” family was then tested against independent Arabic dosage formulas. So the matches aren’t just circular — they’re checked against external linguistic and medical patterns.
3. Sentence line mismatch: Good catch. The EVA transcription used in the decoding is correct (“shol cthom chor cthy”), but the figure caption mistakenly highlighted the wrong line in the folio image. That was a formatting error in Version 5 of the paper, not a change in the decoded sentence itself. I’ll correct that in the next revision.
I appreciate you pointing these out — replication and critique are the only way this hypothesis can be tested properly.
