18-09-2026, 08:35 PM
No, that is ultimately what I did. I was hoping that I could identify candidate words in both and perhaps establish some sort of correspondence.
There are plausible candidates in both separately. One issue is that A lacks a suitable non-botanical comparison, so it can be difficult to distinguish botanical from non-botanical words.
For example, the closest word to matching the 'root' profile in my historical reference works is cthol, however, this word is actually one of the markers Currier used to distinguish Currier A itself, so it could just be a common non-botanical currier A word. Cthor, the 2nd runner up, has the same initial cth used by Currier to distinguish A.
Notably, these have almost no appearance in B, and no other words really match the frequency profile of 'root' in the historical comparisons i have. In the historical texts, root is dramatically enriched against unrelated topics, over 5x in Dioscorides botanical work, nearly 18x in medical remedy works. This should not be a difficult word to spot, if the historical reference works are any example.
Some B leads that don't occur in A are: Okam, kar, kchdy, chdy, and ykedy.
You can immediately see the problem though, a word like 'root' should be extremely common in botanical sections vs non, yet the only word that really matches this profile only really occurs in A, and is itself considered a marker of the A language. No obvious correspondence exists between the B candidates and the A candidates.
This is ultimately what led me to start digging into the different 'Languages' in the manuscript, which i discuss in the other thread i posted. The idea is sound, root should be present and fairly obvious to pick out, i just can't seem to find a good candidate for it, and not from a lack of trying.
There are plausible candidates in both separately. One issue is that A lacks a suitable non-botanical comparison, so it can be difficult to distinguish botanical from non-botanical words.
For example, the closest word to matching the 'root' profile in my historical reference works is cthol, however, this word is actually one of the markers Currier used to distinguish Currier A itself, so it could just be a common non-botanical currier A word. Cthor, the 2nd runner up, has the same initial cth used by Currier to distinguish A.
Notably, these have almost no appearance in B, and no other words really match the frequency profile of 'root' in the historical comparisons i have. In the historical texts, root is dramatically enriched against unrelated topics, over 5x in Dioscorides botanical work, nearly 18x in medical remedy works. This should not be a difficult word to spot, if the historical reference works are any example.
Some B leads that don't occur in A are: Okam, kar, kchdy, chdy, and ykedy.
You can immediately see the problem though, a word like 'root' should be extremely common in botanical sections vs non, yet the only word that really matches this profile only really occurs in A, and is itself considered a marker of the A language. No obvious correspondence exists between the B candidates and the A candidates.
This is ultimately what led me to start digging into the different 'Languages' in the manuscript, which i discuss in the other thread i posted. The idea is sound, root should be present and fairly obvious to pick out, i just can't seem to find a good candidate for it, and not from a lack of trying.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)