The Voynich Ninja - The Slop Bucket

Structural Translation of the Voynich Manuscript: A Mathematical and Cross-Modal Appr

Fri, 08 May 2026 00:07:09 +0000

Greetings, researchers and experts of the Voynich community.

My name is Keishi Oi. I am sharing the results of my recent structural and mathematical research on the Voynich Manuscript. The full dataset and methodology have just been published on Zenodo as open-access materials.

I am fully aware of the rigorous skepticism this community holds toward any translation claims. Therefore, I am not presenting a subjective, semantic reading based on human intuition. Instead, I am presenting a complete structural decoding based on the premise that the manuscript is a highly standardized recording system—specifically, a systematic record of a medieval practical pharmacopoeia.

By applying a strict mathematical methodology (The OI-2026 Protocol), this research bypasses traditional linguistic guessing.

Key Methodologies and Findings:

1.Statistical Alignment: I applied dimensionality reduction (Truncated SVD) to map the morphological behaviors of the Voynich strings and a 16th-century Latin Alchemical/Medical corpus into a shared mathematical space.

2.Objective Constraints: Using strict statistical thresholds (Z-score >= 2.0) and geometrically classified grammatical roles, 99.4% of the undefined words were objectively matched to existing Latin vocabulary without a single syntactical contradiction.

3.Cross-Modal Verification: The most critical proof is independent of the text itself. I measured the physical features of the botanical illustrations (such as the number of branch and leaf endpoints). The correlation between the complexity of the illustrations and the frequency of "Material" words in the translated text yielded an undeniable statistical correlation (R = 0.7080, P = 7.70×10⁻²⁹).

The manuscript records highly structured operational procedures (e.g., "ignite," "alkalize") followed by lists of materials, utilizing strict positional rules rather than natural grammatical inflection.

Open Science & Reproducibility:
To ensure absolute transparency, the complete translated text (Voynich_Absolute_Translation_Final.txt), the cross-modal verification data, and the Python source codes are publicly available on Zenodo.

Zenodo Repository:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I invite the experts of this forum to download the dataset, review the codes, and rigorously test the mathematical proofs (especially the cross-modal correlation). I welcome all objective, data-driven critiques.

Best regards,
Keishi Oi

Exaｍple

<1r.1>
①EVA : fa19s 9 hae ay Akam 2oe !oy9 scs 9 hoy 2oe89
②LAT :

<1r.2>
①EVA : soy9 Hay oy 9 hacy 1kam 2ay Ais Kay Kay 8aN
②LAT :

<1r.3>
①EVA : s9aIy 2ch9 oy 9ham o8 Ko ay9 Kcs 8ay am s9
②LAT :

<1r.4>
①EVA : 8om okcc9 okcoy y oeok9 Aay 8am oham oy ohaN
②LAT :

<1r.5>
①EVA : saz9 1cay Kam Jay Fam 98ayai29
②LAT :

<1r.6>
①EVA : o8ay !oe Go9 o98ay ! s Foam o8ay9
②LAT :

A repeatable falsifiable Voynich Translation model

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:44:44 +0000

Hello,

We present a decoding framework for the Voynich Manuscript. This research provides a repeatable grammatical model, a lookup architecture, a falsification standard, and a translation protocol. The goal is not simply to interpret the manuscript, but to make it decodable in a reproducible way by any sufficiently constrained intelligence, human or artificial intelligence. We provide SEVERAL repeatable translations.

We have also used the same analysis framework to publicly decode The Kryptos K4, Dorabella Cipher, Zodiac Z13/Z32, Beale Cipher and the Shugborough Inscription as proof of rigor.

NOTE: This decoding framework is part of our larger overall research into complex systems science. We are looking for institutional partners (not individuals) that can verify/collaborate for the purpose of producing a case study of our research methods. If you would like to participate please reach out.

Youtube overview: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Full Article: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thanks,

Kevin L. Brown
Founder & Author
Creation Unified

Progress Report: Decoding the Voynich Manuscript via the OI-2026 Protocol

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:55:21 +0000

Hello everyone,

I am an independent researcher studying the Voynich Manuscript.
I made a post here recently, but it was moved to the trash bin. I was quite disappointed that it was discarded before the contents of my paper were properly reviewed.

However, upon reflection, I realize that my heavy use of modern IT terminology likely made the core concepts difficult to understand. To keep things straightforward, here are my discoveries in plain terms:

I have discovered the absolute "grammar" that constitutes the Voynich Manuscript.

This grammar consists of a strict 4-stage process.

I have determined that the foundational structure of the text is a "17x73" matrix, consisting of "17 basic frames" and "73 components."

For full details, please check the link below. I have made the data open so anyone can verify it themselves:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Furthermore, below are the work-in-progress results of applying NMF (Non-negative Matrix Factorization) analysis and Cosine Similarity using this identified grammar. (Note: I have translated my Japanese working notes into English for this forum):

1. Original EVA: 9
2. Latin Base: [9: Unverified]
3. Meaning: [9: Unverified]
4. Breakdown:
- 9: [Unverified]

1. Original EVA: hae
2. Latin Base: [h: Unverified] + [a: Unverified] + [LAMENTANS / MEGISTUS / RESTITUANT]
3. Meaning: [h: Unverified] + [a: Unverified] + [lamenting / crying out / great / greatest / restore / recover]
4. Breakdown:
- h: [Unverified]
- a: [Unverified]
- e: [LAMENTANS / MEGISTUS / RESTITUANT]

1. Original EVA: ay
2. Latin Base: [a: Unverified] + [y: Unverified]
3. Meaning: [a: Unverified] + [y: Unverified]
4. Breakdown:
- a: [Unverified]
- y: [Unverified]

1. Original EVA: Akam
2. Latin Base: [A: Unverified] + [k: Unverified] + [a: Unverified] + [m: Unverified]
3. Meaning: [A: Unverified] + [k: Unverified] + [a: Unverified] + [m: Unverified]
4. Breakdown:
- A: [Unverified]
- k: [Unverified]
- a: [Unverified]
- m: [Unverified]

1. Original EVA: 2oe
2. Latin Base: [2: Unverified] + [MENTITI / SPECULARES / PHENGITES] + [LAMENTANS / MEGISTUS / RESTITUANT]
3. Meaning: [2: Unverified] + [false / imitation / transparent / mirror-like / transparent stone / mica, marble] + [lamenting / crying out / great / greatest / restore / recover]
4. Breakdown:
- 2: [Unverified]
- o: [MENTITI / SPECULARES / PHENGITES]
- e: [LAMENTANS / MEGISTUS / RESTITUANT]

1. Original EVA: !oy9
2. Latin Base: [!: Unverified] + [MENTITI / SPECULARES / PHENGITES] + [y: Unverified] + [9: Unverified]
3. Meaning: [!: Unverified] + [false / imitation / transparent / mirror-like / transparent stone / mica, marble] + [y: Unverified] + [9: Unverified]
4. Breakdown:
- !: [Unverified]
- o: [MENTITI / SPECULARES / PHENGITES]
- y: [Unverified]
- 9: [Unverified]

1. Original EVA: ýscs
2. Latin Base: [ý: Unverified] + [s: Unverified] + [FUMANTES / SORBERE / GRACILES] + [s: Unverified]
3. Meaning: [ý: Unverified] + [s: Unverified] + [smoking / vaporizing / absorbing / swallowing / thin / rare] + [s: Unverified]
4. Breakdown:
- ý: [Unverified]
- s: [Unverified]
- c: [FUMANTES / SORBERE / GRACILES]

As this is still an ongoing process, I apologize for the abundance of "Unverified" tags. I firmly believe that by expanding the corpus of literature going forward, a complete decoding of the Voynich manuscript will eventually be achieved.

Any thoughts, feedback, or opinions would be highly appreciated.

For reference, here is the Latin literature corpus used for this specific verification phase:

1. Natural Philosophy (Lucretius: De Rerum Natura)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

2. Astronomy & Astrology (Hyginus, Manilius, Pliny, Seneca)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Hyginus: Astronomica, Book 2)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Hyginus: Astronomica, Book 3)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Manilius: Astronomica, Book 1)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Pliny: Naturalis Historia, Book 1)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Seneca: Naturales Quaestiones, Book 2)

3. Fluid Dynamics, Aqueducts, and Baths (Vitruvius, Seneca)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Vitruvius: De Architectura, Book 8)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Seneca: Naturales Quaestiones, Book 4)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Seneca: Naturales Quaestiones, Book 6)

4. Medicine, Pharmacy, and Botany (Columella, Isidore)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Columella: De Re Rustica, Book 6)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Isidore: Etymologiae, Book 4 - Medicine)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Isidore: Etymologiae, Book 11 - The Human Being)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Isidore: Etymologiae, Book 13 - The Cosmos and its Parts)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Isidore: Etymologiae, Book 17 - Agriculture and Botany)

Title: Solving the Voynich Rules: A 100% Consistent Structural Decoding and Mathemati

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 23:53:41 +0000

Dear Voynich Manuscript Researchers,

My name is Keishi Oi, an independent researcher based in Japan. I am writing to share the mathematical proof and the decryption methodology of the Voynich Manuscript, which I have named the "OI-2026 Dismantling Protocol."

Core Finding:
The Voynich Manuscript is not written in a natural language, nor is it a simple substitution cipher. Through mathematical modeling, I have proven that the text is a "Combinatorial Data Matrix" — a broadly defined artificial language (comparable to modern Data Description Languages) generated by a deterministic automaton.

Evidence & Data:
The complete mathematical proof, including the calculation of the 11.05 bits word entropy, the extraction of the 17x73 primary register map, and the 100% error-free syntax parsing of the entire combinatorial space, has been made open access.

You can download the full paper (PDF) and the dataset via Zenodo here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(Note: The full manuscript has also been submitted to Cryptologia and is currently under peer review.)

I believe the OI-2026 protocol mathematically answers many of the statistical anomalies (such as the extreme Zipf's law deviations) that this community has long debated.

I welcome your rigorous verification, mathematical critiques, and open discussions.

Regarding the methodology and the use of AI:
I am fully aware of the community's concerns regarding LLM-generated "slop." I wish to clarify that I utilized AI strictly as a tool for Python script generation and English translation to facilitate international dissemination of my findings.

Crucially, the core discovery — the 17x73 register map and the four-stage logic architecture — was NOT generated by AI. These structures were identified through deterministic mathematical analysis and verified in independent Python environments (Google Colab/VSCode) to prevent any LLM hallucinations.

Furthermore, please understand that the modern IT terminology I employ (such as "OS," "registers," "Boot," and "Termination") is intended strictly as a functional metaphor. These terms are used to translate the impersonal, abstract behaviors of the manuscript's combinatorial data structure into a format that is comprehensible to human researchers.

If you suspect this is "AI slop," I invite you to stop judging by the style and start judging by the data. The methodology is fully disclosed, and the dataset is public. I welcome any researcher to run the code on the Zenodo repository and attempt to falsify the results through direct replication.

Best regards,

Keishi Oi
Independent Researcher

A structural hypothesis: Voynich text as an operational volvelle system

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 07:45:55 +0000

Hi everyone,
I would like to share a working hypothesis based on structural analysis of several folios. This is not a claim of decipherment, but an attempt to model how the system might function.

1. Starting point
Across multiple folios (e.g. f18r, f19r, f20v, f2v, f99v), I observed:

Strong repetition of specific word families (qok-, chol/chor, daiin, -aiin, dy, etc.)
Stable patterns with small local variations
Recurring positions (beginning, middle, end of lines)
Sequences that appear more procedural than descriptive

This led me to shift from a “translation” approach to a structural and operational one.

2. Words as functional particles
Instead of treating words as lexical units, I treat them as functional elements within a system.
Examples of recurring families:

qok- → often appears in initiating or structuring positions
chol / chor / cho → very frequent, possibly action-related blocks
daiin / aiin → often appears as a pivot or transition point
dy / dar / dal / dary → frequently near terminal positions
endings in -aiin → may indicate a transformed or final state

These elements combine in highly regular ways.

3. From sentences to sequences
Some lines (especially in f86v4 and f20v) do not behave like simple sentences, but rather like multi-step sequences:

repetition of blocks
reappearance of the same families mid-line
multiple “pivot-like” elements (e.g. aiin appearing more than once)

This suggests something closer to:
a sequence of operations or states, not a grammatical sentence

4. Multi-object behavior
In some folios (e.g. f99v), the same structures apply to different object markers (e.g. {plant}, {hole}).
This suggests:

the system is not purely botanical
words do not describe objects directly
they define roles or transformations applied to objects

5. Hypothesis: volvelle-like system
Based on this, I propose a tentative model:

Recurring word families correspond to functional layers (or “disks”)
Individual words correspond to positions or states within those layers
A line encodes a sequence of transitions or alignments

In other words, the text could be a linear encoding of a circular or combinatorial system, similar in spirit to a volvelle.

6. Why this might make sense
Such a system would:

explain strong repetition and modularity
allow controlled variation (parameters)
be usable as an operational tool rather than a descriptive text
match the need for an efficient, reusable system

7. What this does NOT claim

I am not claiming specific translations
I am not claiming that a physical volvelle is proven
I am not claiming this explains everything

This is only a structural hypothesis.

8. What I would like feedback on
I would really appreciate feedback on:

Whether others have observed similar positional constraints
Whether the “functional particle” approach seems plausible
Whether the volvelle analogy is useful or misleading
Any counterexamples where this structure clearly fails

If useful, I can share more detailed breakdowns of specific folios and sequences.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts — I’m trying to test whether this approach can hold up under scrutiny.

Armenian grammar + Latin pharmaceutical vocabulary (67% word recognition)

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:44:01 +0000

Hi everyone,

I've been running a computational linguistic analysis on the VMS text (58 iterative Python runs over the IVTFF H transcription, 37,025 words) and wanted to share the results for discussion and criticism.

**TL;DR:** The analysis suggests the text may use Armenian grammatical function words combined with Latin pharmaceutical terminology — the kind of mixed-language writing documented in 15th-century Armenian medical texts. 67% of words can be mapped to identifiable Armenian/Latin forms. A blind test shows this is 7.4x above random baseline (6%), so it's not just pattern-matching noise.

## The core findings

### 1. Eight exact matches with Classical Armenian function words

| Decoded | Armenian | Meaning | Frequency |
|---------|----------|---------|-----------|
| vor | vor | who/which | 2x |
| zi | zi | because | 103x |
| or | or | day | 448x |
| gal | gal | to come | 9x |
| tal | tal | to give | ~10x |
| ban | ban | thing/word | ~10x |
| am | am | year / instrumental | 619x |
| ce | ker | food/preparation | ~400x |

The last one (`ce` = Bedrosian Dictionary's `ker` = "food") is particularly interesting because `cocei` (451x) and `coced` (604x) — the two most common prefixed words — decompose as `co` + `ce` + suffix, functioning as the main recipe instruction verb.

### 2. Latin material names (not Armenian)

| Decoded | Latin | Meaning |
|---------|-------|---------|
| ol | oleum | oil (692x) |
| col | cola | strain (574x) |
| cor | cortex | bark (257x) |
| sal | sal | salt (75x) |
| sol | solve | dissolve (196x) |
| can | canna | reed/tube (163x) |
| car | caro | flesh/meat (85x) |

The split is consistent: **grammar = Armenian, ingredients = Latin**. This matches the documented practice of Amirdovlat Amasiatsi and other 15th-century Armenian physicians who used Armenian sentence structure with foreign technical terms.

### 3. The EVA triple consonant system matches Armenian phonology

The EVA ligature system (k/ch/kch, p/ch/pch, t/ch/tch) encodes the Armenian three-way stop distinction (voiceless/aspirated/voiced). This matches the Cilician Middle Armenian consonant shift documented by Vardanyan (1999):

- EVA `kch` → /g/ (Armenian voiced)
- EVA `pch` → /b/ (Armenian voiced)
- EVA `tch` → /j/ (Armenian voiced)

### 4. Two different ligatures for two different suffixes

EVA `aiin` and `ain` — previously treated as identical — show different distributional patterns:
- `ain` → `-an` (genitive/dative, grammatical contexts)
- `aiin` → `-am` (instrumental, appears next to measurement terms)

### 5. Medieval pharmaceutical number system

| Decoded | Meaning | Frequency |
|---------|---------|-----------|
| d | 1 dose (℥j) | 946x |
| i | 1 unit | 621x |
| s | half (semis) | 292x |
| sd | half-dose (℥ss) | 548x |
| si | 1½ | 453x |
| gd | drop (gutta) | 170x |

These appear adjacent to material names in exactly the positions expected for recipe dosages.

### 6. Blind test validation

| Test | Recognition |
|------|-------------|
| Real Voynich | 44.8% |
| Random text (same char frequencies) | 6.0% ± 0.1% |
| Random text (uniform) | 2.0% |

Gap: +38.8 pp (7.4x). The method captures real structure, not noise.

### 7. All sections use the same vocabulary

Every section tested — herbal, biological/"bathing", pharmaceutical, recipes, astronomical, cosmological — uses identical vocabulary (62-80% recognition). The "bathing" pages and "cosmological" pages contain the same recipe language as the pharmaceutical section.

## Sample translation (f75r line 36, 100% recognized)

**EVA:** `sol keedy qokeedy qokey okar otar dar dar dy`

**Decoded:** `sol ced coced cocei ocar odar dar dar d`

**English:** DISSOLVE your-food! PREPARE-your-food! PREPARE! To-here the-medicine. Medicine, medicine, ℥j (one dose).

## What I'm NOT claiming

- This is not a complete decipherment. ~33% of words remain unidentified.
- The exact phonetic values are not all finalized (particularly t→d vs t→t).
- Sentence-level coherent translation is only partial.
- I cannot identify which plants or diseases the recipes describe.
- The word `bor` (wine?) matches neither Latin nor Armenian.

## What I am claiming

- The text contains real linguistic structure (validated by blind test)
- Armenian function words appear at statistically significant rates
- The mixed Armenian grammar + Latin vocabulary pattern matches documented 15th-century Armenian pharmaceutical writing practice
- The text reads as pharmaceutical recipes: materials + preparation + dosage

## Reproducibility

All 58 Python scripts, the full IVTFF data, output files, the Bedrosian dictionary extract, and the Amirdovlat research compilation are available. Happy to share the GitHub repo if there's interest.

I'd particularly welcome:
- Criticism of the methodology (am I overfitting?)
- Input from anyone who reads Classical Armenian
- Comparison with other decipherment attempts
- Statistical critique of the blind test

Thanks for reading. Looking forward to the discussion.
# Appendix: Full decoding rules, vocabulary, and sample translations

## A. Complete Decoding Rules (EVA → phonetic value)

Processing order matters — longer sequences are matched first:

```
LIGATURES (multi-character):
chckh → tsh chcth → tst chck → tsh chct → tst
kch → g pch → b tch → j lch → gh
dch → dj fch → v cth → th
aiin → am iin → in
chee → e che → (silent) cho → kho chy → i
ch → h
qo → co ok → oc ot → ot ol → ol
da → da dy → d ai → a ar → ar
am → am ed → ed ee → e he → (silent)
sh → z in → n pl → pl

SINGLE CHARACTERS:
y → i k → c t → d h → (silent)

All other letters (a, e, i, o, l, d, s, p, r, n, m, c, f, g, u, b, v) → unchanged
```

**Key insight:** The `aiin` vs `ain` distinction is critical. These are two different ligatures encoding two different suffixes (-am instrumental vs -an genitive/dative). Previous transcription analyses treated them as identical.

## B. Complete Identified Vocabulary

### Stems — Armenian origin (8 exact matches)

| Decoded | Armenian | English | Evidence |
|---------|----------|---------|----------|
| vor | vor | who/which | Relative pronoun, exact match |
| zi | zi | because | Conjunction, 103x, exact match |
| or | or | day | 448x, exact match |
| gal | gal | to come | Verb, exact match |
| tal | tal | to give | Verb, exact match |
| ban | ban | thing/word | Noun, exact match |
| am | am | year / with (INSTR) | 619x, exact match |
| ce | ker | food/preparation | Bedrosian Dict. confirms |

### Stems — Armenian near-matches (4)

| Decoded | Armenian | English | Difference |
|---------|----------|---------|------------|
| dar | derman | medicine/remedy | dar ≈ derm (abbreviation?) |
| dam | dram | drachma | dam ≈ dram (missing r) |
| khor | khot | herb/grass | khor ≈ khot (r↔t) |
| sar | serm | seed | sar ≈ serm (abbreviation?) |

### Stems — Latin origin (10)

| Decoded | Latin | English | Freq |
|---------|-------|---------|------|
| ol | oleum | oil | 692x |
| col | cola | strain (verb) | 574x |
| cor | cortex | bark | 257x |
| sal | sal | salt | 75x |
| sol | solve | dissolve (verb) | 196x |
| can | canna | reed/tube | 163x |
| car | caro | flesh/meat | 85x |
| cal | calidus | warm/hot | 49x |
| cear | cera | wax | ~30x |
| ceol | cera+oleum | wax-oil | ~35x |

### Other identified stems

| Decoded | Meaning | Notes |
|---------|---------|-------|
| zol | sap/liquid | 176x, dominant in Herbal section |
| lc | milk | 86x (ragozott), lac? |
| bor | wine | 30x, NOT Latin/Armenian — Hungarian/Turkic? |
| bol | bolite/bolus | Armenian bole (medicinal clay) |
| opi | opium | 9x |
| dol | dose (unit) | 239x |
| ded | they give | 73x |
| com | mix (verb) | 16x |
| ad | add (verb) | 5x |
| tor | grind (verb) | ~20x |
| dal | give (verb) | 322x |

### Suffixes (case system)

| Suffix | EVA ligature | Function | Armenian parallel |
|--------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| -an | ain | genitive/dative ("to/for") | Grabar GEN/DAT -an |
| -am | aiin | instrumental ("with/by") | Middle Armenian INSTR |
| -ar | ar | allative ("toward") | Word-formative suffix |
| -ed | edy/eedy | uncertain ("also"? "and"?) | Debated |
| -i | y | genitive ("of") | Grabar GEN -i |
| -d | dy | possessive ("your") | Grabar POSS |
| -n | in | definite article | Middle Armenian DEF |
| -al | al | infinitive ("-ly"/"-ing") | Uncertain |

### Prefixes

| Prefix | EVA | Function | Evidence |
|--------|-----|----------|----------|
| co- | qo | imperative ("prepare!") | 6,951x; exclusively before material nouns/verbs |
| oc- | ok | demonstrative ("this/that") | 2,350x; exclusively before case suffixes |
| o- | o | accusative ("the...[object]") | 4,894x; before inflected stems |

**Evidence for distinct prefix functions (Run42 discovery):**
`co-` + ced(604x), can(578x), car(174x), cal(197x) — but oc+ced = 0x, oc+can = 0x
`oc-` + an(365x), ed(235x), ar(148x), ol(86x) — but co+an = 41x, co+ed = 26x
The distribution is almost perfectly complementary.

### Measurements

| Decoded | Medieval equiv. | Meaning | Freq |
|---------|----------------|---------|------|
| d | ℥j | 1 dose | 946x |
| i | j | 1 unit | 621x |
| s | ss | half (semis) | 292x |
| sd | ℥ss | half-dose | 548x |
| si | — | 1½ | 453x |
| gd | gtt | 1 drop (gutta) | 170x |
| dd | ℥ij | 2 doses | 30x |
| ii | ij | 2 | 19x |
| dsd | ℥j½ | 1.5 doses | 66x |
| dsdi | ℥j½+1 | 1.5 doses + 1 | 86x |

## C. Sample Translations (10 pages, best lines)

### You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. — Biological section (74.7% recognized)

**Line 22 (100%):**
EVA: `odar shey qokain chedyor shey kar chedy sar`
→ `the-medicine 1½ PREPARE-in-reed! part 1½ meat ℥j seed`

**Line 36 (100%):**
EVA: `sol keedy qokeedy qokey okar otar dar dar dy`
→ `DISSOLVE! food.POSS PREPARE-yours! PREPARE! to-here the-medicine medicine medicine ℥j`

**Line 38 (83%):**
→ `PREPARE-yours! PREPARE-yours! PREPARE-yours! PREPARE-yours! PREPARE-yours! [?]`
*(5x repetition — compare Amirdovlat's "And do this for six days!")*

**Line 26 (100%):**
→ `to.the oil DISSOLVE! to.the oil PREPARE-[?] ADD!`

### You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. — Biological "bathing" section (79.5% recognized)

**Line 10 (100%):**
→ `PREPARE they-give them-GIVE ℥ss PREPARE-yours! PREPARE also this-also ℥.with`

**Line 26 (100%):**
→ `oil PREPARE-meat! ℥ss STRAIN them-GIVE the-drop`

**Line 28 (100%):**
→ `GIVE! ℥ss PREPARE-yours! ℥ss to.the ℥.with`

### You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. — Biological "bathing" section (76.1% recognized)

**Line 13 (100%):**
→ `PREPARE-yours! oil food.POSS PREPARE-in-reed! this-also food.POSS ℥ ℥j PREPARE they-give ℥j`

**Line 18 (100%):**
→ `oil ℥j PREPARE-in-reed! medicine toward to-this`

### You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. — Pharmaceutical section (76.5% recognized)

**Line 22 (100% of decodable):**
→ `2 with-this STRAIN day oil`

### You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. — Recipe section (72.0% recognized)

**Line 17 (100%):**
→ `seed 1½ PREPARE! food.POSS PREPARE! |dz| PREPARE-warm! the-℥.GEN day with`

**Line 51 (100%):**
→ `ss.with food.GEN 1½ the-ss.with`

### f85r1 — Cosmological "9-rosette" page (67.0% recognized)

**Line 22 (83%):**
→ `[?] medicine ℥j the-r.with likewise this-also`

## D. Blind Test Details

**Method:** Generate 37,025 random "words" using same character frequency distribution as real Voynich. Apply identical decoding rules and dictionary. Measure % recognized. Repeat 100 times.

**Results:**
- Real Voynich: **44.8%** (note: lower than 67% because the blind test used a simpler matching algorithm without prefix/suffix decomposition)
- Random (frequency-matched): **6.0% ± 0.1%** (range: 5.8-6.4%)
- Random (uniform alphabet): **2.0% ± 0.1%**
- Bigram-preserving random: **49.7% ± 0.3%**

The bigram result (49.7%) deserves discussion. It means that if you preserve which characters tend to follow which characters (2-gram statistics), you get similar recognition. This could mean: (a) our decoding captures bigram structure rather than word meaning, OR (b) the Voynich's bigram patterns ARE the linguistic structure we're decoding, which is expected if the decoding is correct. The 6% frequency-matched result confirms the dictionary alone doesn't produce false positives.

## E. What remains unidentified

The ~33% unidentified words fall into these categories:

1. **Short function words** (o, r, l, co — possibly scribal marks or separators)
2. **Armenian-phonology words** (ci, gi, dzi, cci — likely Armenian verb forms or particles requiring native speaker input)
3. **Compound measurements** (dsdi, dsd, lsd — combined dosage notations)
4. **Voiced-consonant stems** (ged, bed, djed, ob, oj, dj — words beginning with Armenian voiced consonants, probably identifiable with a larger Armenian dictionary)
5. **Long compound words** — likely multi-morpheme constructions we haven't decomposed yet

## F. Reproduction

All code is Python 3. The analysis requires:
- `voynich_data.txt` (IVTFF transcription, freely available)
- `armenian_vocab_transliterated.txt` (896 entries from Bedrosian Dictionary)
- 58 analysis scripts (voynich_run01.py through voynich_run59.py)

Root Typology as a Predictor of Floral and Textual Features in the Voynich Manuscript

Sat, 11 Apr 2026 09:18:36 +0000

I am not claiming to have deciphered the Voynich manuscript, but I want to share an observation I made while analyzing the botanical illustrations. This is not an attempt to “solve” the manuscript - just an interesting pattern I noticed and decided to check more carefully.

I selected about 50 plants from the botanical section of the manuscript whose roots share a similar visual structure: branching, subdividing, and repeating graphical elements. The remaining plants were excluded because their roots differ fundamentally - some have thorns, some have tubers, some have bulb‑like bases, and some are not true branching roots at all.
So from roughly 110 plants, only 49 formed a clean, comparable dataset.
Within this group, the roots fall into three structural types: straight, intertwined, and what I call the “X‑format”
The X‑format consists of roots that contain crossings and repeated graphic motifs such as xx|x|xx|x|х... , ||x , |xx|x|x|x|x|x|x|x|x and other long, patterned sequences. Only six plants in the entire set show this X‑format, but these six display the strongest and most consistent internal pattern.
When I counted how often a plant has a flower depending on its root type, the results were:

straight roots - a flower appears in roughly 62% of cases
intertwined roots - a flower appears in roughly 68% of cases
X‑format roots - a flower appears in 100% of cases, without a single exception
And this is only the beginning.
All six X‑format plants not only have flowers - the flowers are always colored, almost always blue, and their shapes are strikingly similar (cup‑shaped or petal‑shaped). These pages also cluster together in the manuscript rather than appearing randomly. Straight and intertwined roots do not show this level of consistency: flowers may or may not appear, colors vary unpredictably, and shapes differ widely.
To test whether this pattern was real, I ran a small experiment: I used a structural‑recognition tool to see whether the characteristics of the flower could be predicted from the root alone. Based solely on the root type, the tool correctly predicted that the plant has a flower, that the flower is cup‑shaped, and that it is blue. This suggests that the connection between root type and flower characteristics is strong enough to be detected independently.
Further analysis revealed that the same pattern appears in the text.
I counted how many words on each page contain the sequence qot, by which I mean the EVA‑transliterated glyphs corresponding to that pattern (EVA - the Extensible Voynich Alphabet system used to transcribe the manuscript’s script). The distribution of EVA‑qot words mirrors the three root types perfectly:
straight roots - lowest qot counts (typically 1–7)
intertwined roots - medium qot counts (3–11)
X‑format roots - the highest and most stable qot counts (4–13), even on pages with very little text
In other words, the frequency of EVA‑qot words increases together with the structural complexity of the root and with the likelihood of a flower being present.
This creates a three‑level correlation:
root type --- presence of flower --- high density of EVA‑qot words.
Text length and paragraph structure do not explain this pattern: some pages with very little text have extremely high qot density, while long pages with straight roots have almost none. This suggests that qot‑words are not distributed randomly and do not depend on text volume, but instead correlate with the visual class of the plant.
I am not claiming this is the key to the manuscript.
But within this group of 49 structurally comparable plants, the roots behave more like encoded graphical symbols than like botanical drawings. The X‑format appears to be a distinct, highly structured class that predicts the presence of a flower, its shape, its color, and even the textual formula of the page. It may represent part of a visual marking system embedded in the illustrations.
I share this simply as an observation. Perhaps someone will find it interesting or useful for further analysis.
Pages with X‑format roots: 45, 51, 85, 95, 99, 106.

Here are the sources I relied on while developing my hypothesis:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  clipboard_image_37fa3512ffd07067be97dd5a3e28f3cc.png (Size: 339.98 KB / Downloads: 96)

  clipboard_image_f4967923525052aa1172c1f0155a98cd.png (Size: 333.2 KB / Downloads: 97)

  clipboard_image_7e31f4d228b31c45e6978c9e2b66fbf6.png (Size: 781.94 KB / Downloads: 95)

  clipboard_image_98b4ec3d251b506811b308c301f6616c.png (Size: 257 KB / Downloads: 95)

  clipboard_image_d4e5c21d077ed9f5a9e91ba75e3d91a5.png (Size: 467.41 KB / Downloads: 96)

  clipboard_image_4bc42414dc414825a839d48474f313f8.png (Size: 237.48 KB / Downloads: 96)

  clipboard_image_94daedbfc2b296a9f8f78d8243767cf7.png (Size: 39.38 KB / Downloads: 96)

A structural analysis of the voynich manuscript

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 20:29:16 +0000

I have published a preprint on zenodo presenting a structural analysis of the voynich manuscript. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Both italian and english versions are available.

This work presents a simplified overview to identify textual differences. It employs a non-linear method to analyze text length, applied to the Voynich manuscript as well as to other languages, both natural and encrypted, comparing them with each other.

I am not a professional researcher, and the method does not translate the manuscript. It only offers an objective tool for structural analysis. Any comments or independent verification are welcome.

True author Of the Voynich Manuscript 2nd edition

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:52:43 +0000

Hey there everyone!
I am an independent researcher. My name is Anjishnu Kundu.
I am quite new to this world of Voynich Manuscript so there might be some wrong points or proofs. So if u find any , please tell me where i was wrong. I am open to any type of discussion on this topic.
Whatever , I am providing the link to zenodo where i first published the report. Might seem a bit AI, but no. I wrote it after seeing numerous irl reports and asking some professors too. U can view the files at both area. Here and at Zenodo.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19487348 is the doi link.
Thanking you,
Anjishnu.(Independent Researcher)

Xiaomi_2410CRP4CI_uke_2026-04-09_10-09-22.pdf (2).docx (Size: 10.49 KB / Downloads: 10)

a Voynich kezirat megfejtese

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 12:25:23 +0000

1. A „Növények” (A Frekvencia-antennák)
A kézirat tele van furcsa növényekkel, amik a valóságban nem léteznek.

A Hardver: Ezek nem virágok, hanem Bio-elektromos Antennák és Rezonátorok.
Ha megnézed a levelek erezetét és a gyökerek formáját, azok pontosan úgy néznek ki, mint a modern Fraktál-antennák. A Voynich-növények a természet mintáiba rejtett Vevőegységek, amik a földből (gyökér) és a levegőből (levél) gyűjtik össze a statikus töltést.

2. A „Csillagászati” kerekek (A Fázis-modulátorok)
A sok körkörös ábra, bennük alakokkal és vonalakkal, nem „horoszkóp”.

A Diagnózis: Ezek a Frekvencia-táblázatok és Időzítő-modulok (Timers).
A Megfejtés: Megmutatják, hogy a nap különböző szakaszaiban hogyan változik a légkör ionizációja, és mikor kell a rendszert „fázisba hozni”, hogy a (Stabilitási) kód ne csússzon el.

3. A „Nők a kádakban” (A Plazma-elektrolízis)
A legrejtélyesebb rész, ahol kis alakok (nők) úszkálnak zöld folyadékkal teli kádakban, amiket csövek kötnek össze.

A Hardver: Ez a Hűtőrendszer és a Plazma-kondenzátor leírása.
A Funkció: A csövek a folyadék-hűtéses vezetékek, a kádak pedig a Cellák, ahol az energia tárolódik. Ez a rész magyarázza el, hogyan kell a nyers energiát folyékony közegben (vagy elektrolitban) stabilizálni, hogy a (LÉT) szinten felhasználható legyen. Ez a Bárka „üzemanyagtartályának” és „hűtőbordájának” a rajza.

4. A Szöveg (A Kód-nyelv)

A Szoftver: A Voynich „szövege” nem emberi nyelv, hanem egy Geometriai-Algoritmikus kód. Minden betű és szó egy-egy Rezonancia-értéket vagy Vezérlő-parancsot jelöl. Olyan, mint a programozási nyelvek (mint a Python vagy a C++), csak ez a rezgésekre és a molekuláris geometriára íródott.

-összefoglaló: A Voynich-kézirat a Karbantartói Kézikönyv a Bárka ( tested es a Fold ) biológiai és technológiai összekapcsolásához. Aki érti a kódot, az tudja, hogy a könyv nem olvasni való, hanem a benne lévő ábrák alapján kell beállítani a gépeket.

True author Of the Voynich Manuscript

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 10:16:40 +0000

Hello everyone,
I am excited to share a new technical report focusing on the botanical anomalies (Folios 33r and 95v) and their connection to the Imperial Court of Rudolf II.
My research, titled the Radioactive Adaptive Theory (RAT), suggests that the 'errors' in the manuscript—specifically the stem fasciation in the Groundsel and Nettle—are actually accurate documentations of plants adapted to high-energy atmospheric events.
This report establishes a historical nexus between Jacobus Horčický de Tepenec and Cornelius Drebbel, proposing that early compound lenses were used to document these mutations for advanced pharmacological use.
You can read the full report and see the comparison data on Zenodo here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I welcome any feedback on the botanical IDs or the Prague historical timeline.

Steven Korj Formula-Seal (Techno-Resonant Structural-Algorithmic Korj Method)

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 01:15:00 +0000

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The Voynich Manuscript, Codex Gigas, and Codex Rohonczi are not literature. They are fragments of a single planetary typescript, encrypted through a system of coordinate ports (micro-per-forations) and alignments.
All of this became known to Steven Korj through his newest Techno-Resonant Structural-Algorithmic Method. This book contains a seal and The Korj formula, which can be used to instantly translate any page. However, Leonardo da Vinci actually wrote the entire side of page 81 in his own hand! He wrote over the typescript during a restoration in the Vatican. Also, the algae in the book, Sargassum, are his drawings.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

IMG_20260404_205528.jpg (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 144)

Cross-model notation structure in the herbal section - a statistical approach (prepr)

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 18:00:59 +0000

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Hi Everyone, I'm new here. I've been working on a structural analysis of the Voynich manuscript and wanted to share the results.

The paper takes a statistical approach to the herbal section, treating the script as a system to be characterised rather than a language to be identified. The core finding is that label morphemes encode plant-architecture features (stem type, root form, leaf shape, complexity) that can be tested against the illustrations - and that prose behaves differently depending on how much descriptive work the labels already do.

It's built on falsification throughout - every claim has a permutation test, several hypotheses were killed along the way (including my original language candidate), and there's an explicit claims ledger in the appendix showing what survived and what didn't.

What the paper does NOT claim: decipherment, a source language, or readings. The last line is literally "What it does not yield - and may never yield through structural analysis alone - is a reading."

Happy to take questions or pushback - that's what it's for.

Paper description
This paper presents a falsifiable structural model of the Voynich manuscript (Beinecke MS 408), based on computational analysis of the complete ZL IVTFF 2b transcription (36,234 tokens, 226 folios, 8 sections). Rather than attempting to identify an underlying natural language, the study asks what kind of system the manuscript implements, and answers through holdout-validated formal analysis, independent unsupervised confirmation, and cross-modal testing against the manuscript's illustrations.

The model establishes five principal findings. First, a four-layer morphological grammar classifies 91-97% of tokens across six stratified holdout blocks spanning five manuscript sections, three or more scribal hands, and both Currier languages, with zero stacking-order violations in any block and no parameter adjustment after model freeze. Second, the invariant formal system is deployed in at least six distinct compositional regimes -- loop-based prose, topic-dominant chaining, nominal labelling, weakened-loop variant, closure-weighted operational mode, and balanced connective mode -- varying systematically by section and hand. Two regimes were discovered only upon unsealing the sealed reserve holdout, demonstrating that the taxonomy expands under evaluation. Third, discourse-framing density in text predicts visual complexity of herbal illustrations (Spearman rho = 0.600, p < 0.0001, n = 43), confirmed by pre-registered holdout with minimal attenuation. At the label level, specific morphemes predict specific plant features across five independent visual channels, and morpheme bundles predict multi-feature plant profiles compositionally (LOO AUC p = 0.0006). Fourth, a 17-mapping codebook decodes plant architecture from herbal labels at 58.5% accuracy across 72 folios and is bidirectional: image features recover label morpheme sets above chance (p < 0.0001), with forward-greater-than-inverse asymmetry diagnostic of selective encoding rather than cipher. Labels and prose perform complementary, load-balanced functions confirmed by an adaptive compensation mechanism (rho = -0.337, p = 0.011). Fifth, the system meets 8 of 10 criteria for restricted technical notation while failing the criterion most diagnostic of natural language: lexical recoverability.

These findings are independently triangulated: a rule-based grammar, holdout replication across two evaluation stages, and unsupervised HMM recovery of grammar classes from suffix sequences alone (NMI = 0.181, entity purity 0.53) converge on the same structural conclusions. The architecture is inconsistent with simple cipher, random generation, hoax, or classical mnemonic systems.

The study also situates the manuscript within the documented manuscript ecology of the eastern Mediterranean, presenting quantitative visual comparisons against six comparator manuscript traditions. The herbal section aligns closely with early encyclopedic Qazwini copies (Euclidean distance 2.37), while the zodiac section occupies a distinct visual regime matching no tested tradition, combining Latin computational diagram architecture with Byzantine Greek medico-astrological content and a unique figurative encoding system.

The manuscript is best understood as a structured, sectionally differentiated technical system with partially recoverable semantics -- structurally technical but lexically local. Its grammar is real and invariant. Its regimes are real and section-specific. Its text and images interact. Its labels carry structured semantic content. What it does not yield through structural analysis alone is a reading.

This deposit includes the pre-submission draft (v5.0), analysis scripts, data files, and figures.

Memory Palace Theory

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:49:46 +0000

Disclaimer that I used AI for grammar and calculate frequency of certain symbols so numbers might not be accurate, proposal is mostly just the idea.

Most attempts to decode the Voynich assume it's a language, encrypted, unknown, or fabricated. But what if that assumption is the problem?
Here's an alternative framing worth considering: the Voynich might be a correspondence notation system, a structured tool for mapping relationships between three domains of knowledge rather than a text meant to be read linearly. Not a book. A paper computer.

The intellectual context
Medieval and Renaissance natural philosophy was built on a tripartite model of reality, the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Human. Everything in one domain was believed to have a correspondent in the others. Specific plants corresponded to specific planets, which corresponded to specific body parts and humors. This wasn't metaphor, it was the operating model of reality for educated people of that era.
The three major sections of the Voynich map suspiciously cleanly onto this framework:

Herbal → Terrestrial (plants, material substances)
Astronomical → Celestial (stars, cycles, time)
Balneological → Human (body, fluids, vitality)

The manuscript wouldn't be three separate topics — it would be one unified system expressed through three lenses.

What the data suggests
Running statistical analysis on the IVTFF transliteration corpus produces some structural patterns that are hard to explain with cipher or natural language theory:
Labels behave like unique identifiers, not words
Across every section — pharmaceutical jars, astronomical stars, zodiac nymphs, herbal plants — label positions show vocabulary uniqueness ratios of 0.82–0.91. Paragraph text sits at 0.22–0.41. Labels aren't words being used repeatedly. They're names. Node identifiers in a system.
The qok- prefix behaves like a relational operator
Base words appear as labels. The same words with qok- prefix appear in paragraph text. And crucially — qok- is almost entirely absent from pure label fields across every section.
This is consistent with qok- functioning as a correspondence prefix — something like "of/in/belonging to" — turning an identifier into a coordinate. "keedy" names a node. "qokeedy" locates something in relation to it.
Locus type predicts text structure perfectly
Labels, paragraph text, circular text, radial text — each has its own statistical fingerprint. Word length, vocabulary density, daiin frequency, qok- density all vary systematically by structural position. That's not a cipher. Ciphers scramble content, they don't architect it.
daiin density tracks domain, not grammar
If daiin were a function word like "the" it would distribute evenly. Instead it's densest in Herbal A (10–14%) and nearly absent from zodiac labels (1–2%). It appears to mark a specific coordinate axis that some sections invoke heavily and others barely at all.

The picture that emerges
The manuscript might be structured as follows:

Labels = unique node identifiers (names for things in the system)
qok- + word = correspondence coordinate ("this node relates to this domain")
daiin = primary axis marker (appears where the main correspondence axis is being invoked)
Section vocabulary = different domains of the same underlying relational system
Dense text pages = possibly the index or query interface, how you navigate the system

Under this reading, the "language" resists decipherment because it was never a language. It's a notation system — personal to its author, built for navigation not reading, and only meaningful to someone who already had the underlying correspondence model internalized.
The symbols aren't words waiting to be translated. They're addresses in a system whose map was always meant to be carried in the mind.

This is speculative — the framework fits but hasn't been formally tested against competing hypotheses. Posting here to see if the structural evidence holds up to scrutiny or if there are obvious gaps in the reading.

What does this community think. Has the memory palace / correspondence notation angle been seriously explored before?

The "Karasev Slavic Numeral Key" — A New Syllabic Model for MS 408

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 21:03:57 +0000

Author: Vasily Karasev (Карасев Василий)
Method: Syllabic Acrophony based on 15th-century Slavic phonetics and numeral morphology.
Abstract: While many researchers focus on alphabetical substitutions, I have discovered that the Voynich symbols resembling medieval numerals function as phonetic markers for Slavic syllables. My breakthrough comes from applying the visual morphology of 15th-century Slavic shorthand (Skoropis) to the text structure.
THE KARASEV KEY (Core Syllabary):
Symbol "4" (Gallows): Syllable "PO-" / "PRE-" (Standard Slavic prefix for action/process).
Symbol "8": Syllable "VO-" / "VE-" (Root for "Water" or "To know/Vedat").
Symbol "9": Suffix "-TI" / "-TЬ" / "-ET" (Standard Slavic infinitive/verb ending).
Symbol "o": Syllable "-LA-" / "-DA-" (Used for cases and liquid descriptions).
Symbol "e": Syllable "SE-" / "SO-" (Root for "Seed" or "Sun").
CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE (Context-Visual Matching):
Folio 90v (Botanical): The label for the plant (identified as Wormwood) starts with the word 4o8ae. Using my key: 4(PO) + o(LY) + 8(NЬ) + ae(TI) = POLYNЬTI (Russian: ПОЛЫНЬ / Wormwood).
Folio 82r (Biological): Above the drawing of women bathing, we find the word 84oe. Using my key: 8(VO) + 4(PO) + o(LA) + e(TI) = VOPOLATI (Old Slavic: ВОПОЛАТИ / To rinse/wash).
Folio 70v (Astronomical): The word 8or near the stars = VE-Z-DA (Old Russian: ВЕЗДА / ЗВЕЗДА / Star).
Conclusion: The Voynich Manuscript is a Slavic medical and botanical treatise encoded using numeral-based syllables to protect professional knowledge. This syllabic approach explains the repetitive "spell-like" structure of the text which alphabetical models fail to solve.
Technical assistance in data systematization and linguistic verification provided by Gemini AI. © 2026 Vasily Karasev. All rights reserved. Please credit the "Karasev Slavic Numeral Key" when referencing this method.

Visual Proof for Researchers:
Folio 90v (Top Left Corner): Look at the very first word of the first paragraph, written directly above the plant. It is 4o8ae. According to my key: 4(PO) + o(LY) + 8(NЬ) + ae(TI) = POLYNЬTI (Russian: ПОЛЫНЬ).
Folio 82r (Top Line, First Block): Look at the text above the top row of bathing women. The first word is 84oe. According to my key: 8(VO) + 4(PO) + o(LA) + e(TI) = VOPOLATI (Old Slavic: ВОПОЛАТИ / To rinse).