10-09-2026, 07:08 AM
No, it’s a homophonic cipher (!), meaning a plaintext letter can be replaced by several different ciphertexts. So it’s not a pure substitution cipher.
There are many small clues suggesting that the reverse makes more sense. As I mentioned earlier, the phenomenon where “ch” and “sh” before “e” predict how often “qo” appears at the beginning of the next word. This very strange long-range effect is resolved under Reva (Reverse EVA).
The “qo” atom.
Forward: “q” follows “o” 97.7% of the time. Thus, “q” carries almost no information about the following character in the forward direction → “qo” as a unit is justified. Additionally: 99.4% token-initial.
In Reva (reverse reading direction), the “q” is, so to speak, merely a choice at the end of the word (where it appears in Reva); there are then other glyphs that follow “o,” making it much more “natural”—
But the most important reasons for the VBM are:
The VMS families—the “e” family, for example—often seem to have a glyph (e.g., K) preceding them, but consist of several glyphs themselves. In REVA, this is reversed, and that fits much better with the distribution of consonants between vowels in German.
The “aiin” families fit perfectly with the typical endings in German (e.g., “en”), but they’re in the wrong place—they should actually be at the beginning—and Reva balances this out perfectly as well.
There are also several minor statistical effects here, but overall, the VBM—assuming it uses a German cipher—fits the backward-read variant much better. And, by the way, that was also a typical cipher variant of the Middle Ages.
The five translated lines were still just a proof of concept; the actual cipher will consist of several tables, with about 60 to 80 basic patterns that are combined.
I’m nowhere near finished with this cipher—or rather, with several variants of it—so I don’t want to release anything until I’m at a point where it makes sense to do so.
The VBM cipher is much simpler than the Naibbe cipher.
And regarding the VBM, I’ve attached the VBM PDF again; hopefully, it explains it very clearly. But it’s also a bit outdated.
There are many small clues suggesting that the reverse makes more sense. As I mentioned earlier, the phenomenon where “ch” and “sh” before “e” predict how often “qo” appears at the beginning of the next word. This very strange long-range effect is resolved under Reva (Reverse EVA).
The “qo” atom.
Forward: “q” follows “o” 97.7% of the time. Thus, “q” carries almost no information about the following character in the forward direction → “qo” as a unit is justified. Additionally: 99.4% token-initial.
In Reva (reverse reading direction), the “q” is, so to speak, merely a choice at the end of the word (where it appears in Reva); there are then other glyphs that follow “o,” making it much more “natural”—
But the most important reasons for the VBM are:
The VMS families—the “e” family, for example—often seem to have a glyph (e.g., K) preceding them, but consist of several glyphs themselves. In REVA, this is reversed, and that fits much better with the distribution of consonants between vowels in German.
The “aiin” families fit perfectly with the typical endings in German (e.g., “en”), but they’re in the wrong place—they should actually be at the beginning—and Reva balances this out perfectly as well.
There are also several minor statistical effects here, but overall, the VBM—assuming it uses a German cipher—fits the backward-read variant much better. And, by the way, that was also a typical cipher variant of the Middle Ages.
The five translated lines were still just a proof of concept; the actual cipher will consist of several tables, with about 60 to 80 basic patterns that are combined.
I’m nowhere near finished with this cipher—or rather, with several variants of it—so I don’t want to release anything until I’m at a point where it makes sense to do so.
The VBM cipher is much simpler than the Naibbe cipher.
And regarding the VBM, I’ve attached the VBM PDF again; hopefully, it explains it very clearly. But it’s also a bit outdated.