03-05-2026, 01:11 AM
Having watched the Youtube videos of Voynich Talk, I understand there are only a limited numbers of glyphs in the VMS, certain glyphs appear only at the beginnings or ends of words, some glyphs strongly predict which glyph may follow them, and repeated word families occur throughout the text so a simple cypher letter to letter of a natural language does not match.. Being based in China and very familiar with Chinese characters, it made me think of the following hypothesis: may be the individual glyphs do not represent sounds or letters in the normal alphabetic sense. Rather, they would function more like the strokes used to build characters: meaningless on their own phonetically, but combined according to structural rules to create distinct semantic units. The unit would therefore be the whole “word,” not the individual glyph. This could be in turn used to encode a natural language such as Latin, Italian, German, or Greek encoded in these symbols (as if using some form of ideograms to encode an existing language). Similar-looking words would not necessarily have related pronunciations, but could represent entirely different concepts generated through a a combinatorial system.
What do you think? This could help explain why the manuscript statistically resembles natural language in some respects while not resembling in other aspects?
It would not exactly the same as but a bit like the so-called Wubi typing method in Chinese where each letter refer to a shape or radical combining a set of letter helps to type in characters. Except here there would be an agreed method to assign each word to a character. The weak point of this theory is if it’s highly random it requires XV century copyists to master a whole system which is as complex as Chinese just to produce a single manuscript, that sounds a bit extreme knowing that learning such system would take many years especially in the absence of other texts to learn from...
What do you think? This could help explain why the manuscript statistically resembles natural language in some respects while not resembling in other aspects?
It would not exactly the same as but a bit like the so-called Wubi typing method in Chinese where each letter refer to a shape or radical combining a set of letter helps to type in characters. Except here there would be an agreed method to assign each word to a character. The weak point of this theory is if it’s highly random it requires XV century copyists to master a whole system which is as complex as Chinese just to produce a single manuscript, that sounds a bit extreme knowing that learning such system would take many years especially in the absence of other texts to learn from...