01-06-2026, 06:25 PM
During my independent research of the manuscript text, I may have been able to compile a list of letter combinations that form all of the words in the manuscript, and here it is:
1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s,
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, q
3). All gallows and EVA x (appears rarely and only in Voynich B).
*I can't be sure about e, because it can double like letter i, and I think the combination es is like in.
Although I doubt it, you can consider chy/shy and dy to be separate bigrams if you want. Ol, or, al, ar included in the list of bigrams because they are statistically inseparable (there are many separate ol and or, as well as parts of words: chol, poror, ykor and etc).
In fact, these combinations can be used to create any word in the manuscript, for example:
daiin = d+ai+in
chey = ch+e+y
chedy = ch+e+d+y
dy + d+y(unbelievable)
shapchedyfeey = sh+a+p+ch+e+d+y+f+ee+y (or sh+a+p+chedy+f+ee+y)
rchseesy = r + ch + s + ees + y
qokaiin = q + o + k + ai + in
otolaiin = o + t + ol + ai + in
doaro = d + o + ar + o
It looks bulky, but it seems to be true, as you can see, words are made up of not only individual letters, but also of bigrams.
If the encryption algorithm is based on substitution (which is likely to be the case, as there is nothing more appropriate for the 15th century than substitution), then the substitution alphabet contains between 26 and 28 letters (26 if we consider e, ee, and es to be equal and ignore x, which is only found in Voynich B). By the way, the Latin alphabet contains 26 letters.
In my opinion (just in case it's interesting), the letters of the mysterious alphabet are hidden behind numbers, and the numbers are hidden behind the Latin letters themselves. This can explain the presence of bigrams, which are not typical for regular substitution.
Although... at the same time, this is a convincing argument in favor of mystification, as this method can produce as many words as you like.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English, text made by translator.
1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s,
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, q
3). All gallows and EVA x (appears rarely and only in Voynich B).
*I can't be sure about e, because it can double like letter i, and I think the combination es is like in.
Although I doubt it, you can consider chy/shy and dy to be separate bigrams if you want. Ol, or, al, ar included in the list of bigrams because they are statistically inseparable (there are many separate ol and or, as well as parts of words: chol, poror, ykor and etc).
In fact, these combinations can be used to create any word in the manuscript, for example:
daiin = d+ai+in
chey = ch+e+y
chedy = ch+e+d+y
dy + d+y(unbelievable)
shapchedyfeey = sh+a+p+ch+e+d+y+f+ee+y (or sh+a+p+chedy+f+ee+y)
rchseesy = r + ch + s + ees + y
qokaiin = q + o + k + ai + in
otolaiin = o + t + ol + ai + in
doaro = d + o + ar + o
It looks bulky, but it seems to be true, as you can see, words are made up of not only individual letters, but also of bigrams.
If the encryption algorithm is based on substitution (which is likely to be the case, as there is nothing more appropriate for the 15th century than substitution), then the substitution alphabet contains between 26 and 28 letters (26 if we consider e, ee, and es to be equal and ignore x, which is only found in Voynich B). By the way, the Latin alphabet contains 26 letters.
In my opinion (just in case it's interesting), the letters of the mysterious alphabet are hidden behind numbers, and the numbers are hidden behind the Latin letters themselves. This can explain the presence of bigrams, which are not typical for regular substitution.
Although... at the same time, this is a convincing argument in favor of mystification, as this method can produce as many words as you like.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English, text made by translator.