(19-05-2026, 04:39 PM)dashstofsk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the main point I wanted to highlight was that the writer was not following any sort of algorithm, was not consulting code tables or ledgers or throwing dice. I believe people are thinking too hard. The method is probably more simple.
Oh, you are very likely correct. Just like we don't need to consult ledgers or toss dice to write English, the Voynich scribes probably didn't either once they became fluent in the system. After enough repetition, writing becomes procedural memory and you stop consciously thinking about rules and simply write. That is really the point of the ledger model. Not that the scribe sat there actively consulting a table for every token, but that the underlying structure had to be learned somehow. Children learning English don't carry spelling charts forever either, but those constraints still exist beneath the writing process. In the Voynich case, the system is actually fairly compact: no capitalization or punctuation, four gallows, and a constrained glyph inventory. Once internalized, it likely flowed naturally.
When I describe a ledger, I'm not necessarily describing the moment-to-moment writing process of an experienced scribe. I'm describing the minimal structural framework required to teach, constrain, and reproduce the system consistently. After enough practice, the ledger probably disappears into muscle memory. So, a learned single sheet ledger system like what I'm suggesting follows the flow of writing that the paleography suggests. Now what could be more simple that the way you just wrote that reply?