Options

geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

Index
geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory
RE: interesting Greek reading of 1st line of f67r 1

ReneZ > 25-03-2019, 09:33 AM

(24-03-2019, 11:54 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is just like Koen said in another thread: "One of the very few ways I can imagine the VM text containing meaning is if a language were somehow made phonetically poorer, the phoneme inventory flattened. Similar sounds merged."

Is that, because it would have been a sensible thing to do in the early 15th Century, or is it, because it is a practical way of making more sense out of the MS text?

Another comment, though this is nothing I would apply too strictly.

I have seen quite a few tentative translations of the first line of the MS now.

How nice would it have been if any of these were something like this:

"here begins the book of..."

or just:

"book of ..."

Unfortunately, every single one, and this includes the present proposal, is something that seems like the middle of some dialogue.
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

MarcoP > 25-03-2019, 10:50 AM

(25-03-2019, 09:33 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-03-2019, 11:54 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is just like Koen said in another thread: "One of the very few ways I can imagine the VM text containing meaning is if a language were somehow made phonetically poorer, the phoneme inventory flattened. Similar sounds merged."

Is that, because it would have been a sensible thing to do in the early 15th Century, or is it, because it is a practical way of making more sense out of the MS text?

Another comment, though this is nothing I would apply too strictly.

I have seen quite a few tentative translations of the first line of the MS now.

How nice would it have been if any of these were something like this:

"here begins the book of..."

or just:

"book of ..."

Unfortunately, every single one, and this includes the present proposal, is something that seems like the middle of some dialogue.

I agree.

Another interesting aspect is how word endings are treated. Greek, being highly inflected, conveys most of the grammatical information in suffixes. Ignoring grammar is of course a key feature of the four-steps. Grammar is typically hand-waved away by some reference to generic lost languages or undocumented writing styles.

Quote:my reading:
"... monus
tors thAl Ars "

interpretation:
" ... monos
thors[os] thel[ei] eros "

Note: It is clear that in general, Greek final vowels are routinely not represented in this script. This is in keeping with the Judaeo-Greek interpretation of the script as akin to the Hebrew script with no vowel diacritic dots written.

translation:
"... a solitary
thursos wants love "

Here, the first suffix is altered, the second and third are added from scratch (consonant included). Not being familiar with Greek I am not sure, but the accusative of eros appears to be ἔρωτᾰ: the fourth suffix, also altered by adding an arbitrary 'o', could be just wrong. None of the four original suffixes was kept, and the sentence could still be grammatically wrong.

Also, treating all vowels as wildcards, opens a number of possibilities. If you don't like ἔρως, you can choose one of the following (and many other options, I am sure):
ὥρας
Ἆρες
Ἄρης
Ἶρις
ὄρος
ἀρὰς
αὔρας
ἔαρος
εἴρας
εὖρος
ἱερᾶς
εὐρὺς
Ἄϊρος
ἄορας
οὖρος
οὐρᾶς
Ἥρας
ἄρας
ἑώρας
ἀέρος
Ὁρᾷς
ἥρως
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

-JKP- > 25-03-2019, 12:06 PM

Here is a passage about Socrates and his household in Greek. I've added Latinized Greek for those not familiar with the Greek letters.

ὁ Σωκράτης Ἀθηναῖός ἐστιν. ὁ Σωκράτης ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις οἰκεῖ μετὰ τῆς γυναῖκος καὶ μετὰ τῶν παίδων. ἡ γυνὴ Ξανθίππη ἐστὶν. ἡ γυνή ὀλβία αἰεί ἐστιν · ὁ γὰρ Σωκράτης ἐστὶν οὐδέποτε κατ'οἶκον. ὁ γὰρ Σωκράτης ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἀλλὰ οὐδέποτε μετὰ τῶν παίδων ἐστι κατ'οἶκον.

ho Sōkrátēs Athēnaĩόs estin. ho Sōkrátēs en taĩs Athḗnais oikeĩ metà tē̃s gunaĩkos kaì metà tō̃n paídōn. hē gunḕ Xanthíppē estìn. hē gunḗ olbía aieí estin ; ho gàr Sōkrátēs estìn oudépote kat'oĩkon. ho gàr Sōkrátēs en tē̃ͅ agorãͅ, allà oudépote metà tō̃n paídōn esti kat'oĩkon.

I'll leave it to your imagination to picture it with some of the vowels compressed out and some common words like kai ("and") to possibly be written more simply or phonetically (e.g., qy).

Here is Geoffrey's interpretation of the first part of the VMS:

[pilcrow] est(i) stom[a] ar[a] skhem[a] mon[o] ; thors[os] khairet[ai] stor[yi] , monos thors[os] thel[ei] eros

The first thing I notice is the different grammatical placements and structures, and the absence of some common words, and then I realized it's really not enough text to know if this is just a quirk of the writer or a problem with the method/translation. (And yes, I realize Judeo-Greek is not Greek, just as Yiddish is not German.)

I also agree with Marco that there's a lot of leeway when the translator is choosing which vowels to insert.
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

ReneZ > 25-03-2019, 02:12 PM

Marco picks out a good example, which is worth looking at from the MS author's perspective.
The last four words of the proposed Greek meaning are:

monos thorsos thelei eros

Three words end in -os, but in the Judaeo-Greek version all three are treated differently:

monus tors thal Ars

this then leads to Voynichese:

Sholdy sory cKhar ory

Note also that the second and third word both started with 'th', but these two become in the end:

s... cKh..

Also, the introduction of the Aleph character allows for a great amount of free choice, in two steps. There are six of them in the Judaeo-Greek version. These allow the following mapping, in order:

e -> A -> a
o -> A -> a
a -> A -> a
e -> A -> a
e -> A -> a
e -> A -> o

A fundamental problem with this Aleph character is that it would only be needed for any vowel that is not immediately following a consonant. This is because the points are normally written below any consonant, not just Aleph.

So, for example, the second word 'stoma' would be written 'stm' with points below the t and the m. No Aleph.

The first word 'esti' would be 'Ast' with points below the Aleph and the t. Here, the 'i' character in the reading 'Aist' that ends up being a ch comes out of nowhere.
RE: Successful translation ?

geoffreycaveney > 25-03-2019, 03:51 PM

MOD NOTE: This post was merged into this thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., as it contains a specific outline of Geoffrey's theory which was off topic in the original thread. Please keep specific discussion of Geoffrey's theory in this thread.

I want to begin the discussion by thanking Rene for expressing a consolidated presentation of his critique of my (or any) proposed translation or reading / interpretation of the Voynich MS text. Such a presentation is helpful, whether we agree or disagree in our conclusions.

Naturally it will take me some time to respond to all of Rene's points in a methodical way.

Regarding the point that in recent cases of decryption of a document, "there was never any discussions whether it is correct or not": The obvious counterexample is Linear B. The initial reaction of the majority of scholars to Ventris and Chadwick's first major paper proposing their decryption of Linear B was widespread skepticism and disbelief. It took at least several years to convince the majority of scholars that they were correct. Of course I have not even written a paper yet, major or otherwise; I have just posted a number of readings and interpretations of passages of text to this forum.

I agree of course that tables are absolutely necessary: Greek -> Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script, and Judaeo-Greek -> Voynich text. I did not want to construct tables prematurely, but I agree that it is clear that I need to present such tables at this stage.

To begin with in this first response, I can make a number of basic points about the method of my proposed decryption and about the original encryption process:

(1) The Greek -> Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script step created the ambiguity in a large portion of the Greek vowels, since the Hebrew script does not have vowel letters per se, and since vowel diacritic dots are not written, certainly not by the final stage of the Voynich MS text.

For example, it is relatively clear that Greek iota -> Hebrew yod. Beyond that, the vowels are ambiguous for a number of reasons. Hebrew does also have the glide "vav", akin to "w", which would be a natural candidate for another language's "u" vowel. Unfortunately, here it is Greek that is ambiguous, because Greek upsilon always varied between an [u] pronunciation and a fronted [y] pronunciation (akin to the German umlauted "ü"). By medieval Greek, in many cases the pronunciation of upsilon had simply become [i], exactly the same as iota. But in diphthongs like "au" and "ou", the upsilon retained its original vowel quality [u].

It appears to me that the Voynich MS author was not entirely consistent in transcribing Greek upsilon. In some places the author followed the written Greek letter and transcribed it with Hebrew "vav". In other places the author followed the medieval spoken Greek pronunciation and transcribed it with Hebrew "yod". There may not necessarily be a consistent rule that the author followed in this variation of transcriptions.

Other Greek vowels are even more ambiguous than that, because Hebrew has no natural equivalent letters for them at all. Even worse, Hebrew has not one but *two* "placeholder" letters that can often stand where a vowel is intended to be: aleph and ayin. The original intention was for the letter to serve as a place under which vowel diacritic dots can be written, but in this text of course the vowel diacritic dots are not written at all. Although there was a historical distinction between Hebrew aleph as a glottal stop, and Hebrew ayin as a pharyngeal stop, these sounds had lost phonemic significance even in Hebrew for at least more than a millennium before the time of the Voynich MS, and probably longer than that. In phonetic/phonemic descriptions of Judaeo-Greek, both aleph and ayin are given the value [glottal stop / null] ! The glottal stop has no more significance here than it does in modern English, as an optional phonetic effect of pronouncing a stressed initial vowel with some emphasis. Essentially, in phonemic terms, both aleph and ayin have the value [null] in Judaeo-Greek. They are purely placeholder letters.

Thus, the choice of aleph or ayin could very well have been more or less arbitrary in the encryption from Greek -> Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script. The content of the vowel quality would have been indicated in the diacritic dots, if at all. But by the final stage, the dots were not there.

I propose that in the second encryption stage, Hebrew aleph -> Voynich character [a], and Hebrew ayin -> Voynich character [o]. The phonemic distinction between them had actually been lost in the first stage, in the Hebrew script itself. This is why, by the final stage, any Greek alpha, any Greek omicron/omega, and many Greek epsilon/eta, could be represented by either Voynich [a] or by Voynich [o].

Regarding Greek epsilon/eta: I have seen cases in Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script text, where this vowel is sometimes indicated with a following Hebrew yod, but sometimes only indicated with a placeholder aleph or ayin. In fact in Hebrew itself this variation exists, between the writing of the yod letter after the /e/ vowel, vs. only placing vowel diacritic dots beneath the preceding consonant letter. These ambiguous variations, which I did not invent out of whole cloth but which exist in Hebrew writing itself and in Judaeo-Greek writing itself, explain why a Greek epsilon/eta can show up in the final Voynich text as sometimes [e] (Hebrew yod), sometimes [a] (Hebrew aleph), sometimes [o] (Hebrew ayin), and sometimes nothing at all (Hebrew diacritic dots). It may be frustrating for us to interpret such a manuscript, but the ambiguity does arise naturally out of the long-existing spelling ambiguities of this vowel both in Hebrew and in Judaeo-Greek.

Regarding Greek omicron/omega, it is very similar to epsilon/eta: sometimes indicated with a following Hebrew vav, but sometimes only indicated with a placeholder aleph or ayin, and sometimes only indicated with diacritic dots. As with epsilon/eta, this leads to a great amount of ambiguous variation by the final stage of the MS text: Greek omicron/omega could thus end up in the Voynich text as sometimes [d] (Hebrew vav), sometimes [o] (Hebrew ayin), sometimes [a] (Hebrew aleph), and sometimes nothing at all (Hebrew diacritic dots).

To note just one specific example of the latter variation: In the other thread, Marco makes the critique that the Greek suffix of "monos" is altered in my Voynich reading to "monus". This is an example of the indication of omicron/omega by a following Hebrew vav, which then became Voynich [d] in the second encryption step. However, as I explain here, the Hebrew script does not by any means write the letter vav for all cases of Greek omicron/omega, so you are not going to find a consistent expression of omicron/omega in any text that has gone through the stage of the Hebrew script, as I propose this one has.

I hope I have at least *explained* the vowel ambiguities with this summary, if not satisfied you or removed the frustration of the resulting ambiguous text that is therefore difficult to interpret clearly in many places.

(2) As if the ambiguity of the vowels in the Hebrew script weren't enough, the second step of the original encryption process added a systematic ambiguity of the consonants as well. This I cannot ascribe to the Hebrew script; this was a decision of the author to encrypt the text in an even more ambiguous way. This is the main feature of the second encryption step from Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script -> Voynich text.

Perhaps, if parts of the MS text contained Dionysian and/or Kabbalistic information, the author deliberately wanted the text to remain mysterious and difficult to read and interpret for the uninitiated (mission accomplished!).

The basic system of this ambiguation of the consonants in the second step of the encryption process I can explain as follows:

Both "l" and "r" liquid letters were merged to a single character, Voynich [r].

Both "m" and "n" nasal letters were merged to a single character, Voynich [l].

However, when this Voynich [l] is written as a ligature with Voynich [ch], it appears as the character [sh], but with a closed loop on top, not an open loop.

Also, in many cases, the author chose to encrypt final "n" with the alternate character Voynich [(i)in].

Both "s" and "z" sibilant letters were merged to a single character, Voynich [y].

Both "k" and "g" velar/guttural letters, as well as "kh" ("ch" in Latin/English), were merged to a single character, Voynich [t].

Both "t" and "d" dental/alveolar letters, as well as "th", were merged to a single character, Voynich [k].

Also, in many cases, the author chose to encrypt "t"/"th"/"d" with the alternate character Voynich [s].

When this Voynich [s] is written as a ligature with Voynich [ch], it appears as the character [sh], but with an open loop on top, not a closed loop.

Both "p" and "b" labial letters, as well as "ph", were merged to a single character, Voynich [p].

However, in most places outside of top lines of paragraphs and other prominent text, the author chose to encrypt "p", "b", and "ph" with the alternate character Voynich [d].

The author probably chose [d] as the alternate character in this case because he was already encrypting Hebrew "vav" as Voynich [d]. Hebrew vav can be the glide "w" or the closely related consonant "v". But in Hebrew as in other languages, the letter "b" (Hebrew bet) is also often pronounced "v", in many cases identical to the pronunciation of Hebrew vav when it is functioning as a consonant ! Moreover, the same process of the sound change from "b" to "v" famously occurred in Greek. Thus, based on both Hebrew phonology and on Greek phonology, the alternation of "b" (Voynich [p]) and "v" (Voynich [d]) is completely natural. Since the author in this second encryption step is merging all voiced/voiceless pairs, the original Greek "p" got carried along with "b" in this orthographic alternation in the Voynich script.

Also, in some cases, the author chose to encrypt "ph" with the alternate character [f].

This set of consonant merging rules accounts for virtually all consonants in all of my Judaeo-Greek readings and interpretations of various passages of Voynich MS text.

-----
Geoffrey Caveney
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

geoffreycaveney > 25-03-2019, 04:15 PM

Note to all readers of this thread: I believe that all of this discussion will become much clearer, if you also refer to Rene's related thread "Successful translation ?", and to my response there in which I lay out a rather detailed summary explanation of all of the letter encryptions that happened in the first encryption step from Greek -> Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script (mainly vowel changes and ambiguation) as well as in the second encryption step from Judaeo-Greek / Hebrew script -> Voynich text (mainly consonant changes and ambiguation).

I will of course continue to discuss all of the detailed questions and criticisms that Rene, Marco, and others raise on this thread as well, but the "Successful translation ?" thread is a very useful guide, both as an introductory summary explanation of my hypothesis of the author's encryption method, as well as for general discussion of the various ways that the ambiguities created systematically by this encryption method may make reading and interpretation problematic in certain (many!) places in the Voynich MS text.

Geoffrey
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

MarcoP > 25-03-2019, 06:05 PM

Hi Geoffrey,
I have asked the admins to move here your post in "Successful translation": it will be more convenient for both threads.

From what you write, I understand the ambiguity of your system is OK for you, as well as the ungrammaticality of the nominative "eros" appearing instead of the accusative.

The obvious question is: of all the many thousands of ungrammatical sentences that would have more or less matched the consonants in your "first step", why did you choose the one that you interpret as "a solitary thursos wants love"? Why is this particular sentence meaningful to you?
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

geoffreycaveney > 25-03-2019, 06:48 PM

(25-03-2019, 06:05 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Geoffrey,
I have asked the admins to move here your post in "Successful translation": it will be more convenient for both threads.

From what you write, I understand the ambiguity of your system is OK for you, as well as the ungrammaticality of the nominative "eros" appearing instead of the accusative.

The obvious question is: of all the many thousands of ungrammatical sentences that would have matched the consonants in your "first step", why did you choose the one that you interpret as "a solitary thursos wants love"? Why is this particular sentence meaningful to you?

My response in the "Successful translation ?" thread was a direct reply to Rene's original post, representing my attempt to describe exactly the steps that Rene said were necessary for any proposed solution: to explain the original encryption steps. I did so, with much detail about both Greek and Hebrew and Judaeo-Greek linguistics to back it up. I do not see how anyone can claim that is hijacking a thread or not directly relevant to the topic of the thread and the original post. At the very least, there should be a note and a link placed there, so that all readers of the "Successful translation ?" thread can see that I replied in detail, and can be directed to a link that they can click on to read my response and my summary explanation, and evaluate it for themselves.

About the nominative/accusative eros, I certainly considered that carefully in my original reading and interpretation before I posted it here. In modern Greek, eros is also the accusative singular:

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

(Click on "show" in the "Declension of eros" box. You will see that the accusative is also eros.)

I strongly suspect it was also used that way in spoken colloquial Greek and in Judaeo-Greek by the 15th century. (Not all of these things are documented when it comes to colloquial Greek, as the "prestige" writing style was to use as many classical forms as possible.)

Regarding why a particular interpretation may be the most likely among many in an ambiguous writing system or cipher: It all depends on the context of the surrounding text, and what is most likely to be meaningful to the author (not what is meaningful to me or to you). In this case, I already had the following readings before interpreting this clause: reading of the "attribution" label at the end of the paragraph as "sparagmos" ; reading of the related word "thursos" in the immediately preceding clause ; reading of a semantically related verb after "thursos" in the immediately preceding clause ; reading of another Greek word for "love" with a different connotation in the immediately preceding clause. That is a significant number of context clues, is it not?

As for the word "monos", this one is actually not so terribly ambiguous. To me it is by far the most obvious Greek word to be likely to occur here with the structure m/n+V+m/n+V+s. You cannot make such a long list for this one as you could for "eros". The "s" on the end means that it is likely a masculine nominative singular form modifying "thursos", rather than an adverb like "mono", without the "s", such as we found in the first question clause of the paragraph.

Geoffrey
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

MarcoP > 25-03-2019, 07:49 PM

(25-03-2019, 06:48 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding why a particular interpretation may be the most likely among many in an ambiguous writing system or cipher: It all depends on the context of the surrounding text, and what is most likely to be meaningful to the author (not what is meaningful to me or to you). In this case, I already had the following readings before interpreting this clause: reading of the "attribution" label at the end of the paragraph as "sparagmos" ; reading of the related word "thursos" in the immediately preceding clause ; reading of a semantically related verb after "thursos" in the immediately preceding clause ; reading of another Greek word for "love" with a different connotation in the immediately preceding clause. That is a significant number of context clues, is it not?

How can you be 100% sure that Ars is not "Iris"? What if the text is saying something slightly different from what you expect? What do you know of what was meaningful to the author?
You freely pick up meanings on the basis of what seems more likely to you. If the writer would have wanted to say that your thorsos wants Iris, he would have had no way to write it. Anything with r-s in it must be "eros", because you have decided that the context is such and such.

With all these degrees of freedom, you can do whatever you want. You can only do whatever you want. You make up the context, you make up the meaning. Maybe ars means eros because tors means thursos, or maybe ars means ouros because tors means theritos; this is your creative writing game. But if all you need is that the manuscript tells you that "a solitary thursos wants love", go with it. A manuscript that begins with as meaningful a question as "Is the mouth a form only?" will certainly be full of just as meaningful answers.
RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

geoffreycaveney > 25-03-2019, 09:00 PM

(25-03-2019, 07:49 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(25-03-2019, 06:48 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding why a particular interpretation may be the most likely among many in an ambiguous writing system or cipher: It all depends on the context of the surrounding text, and what is most likely to be meaningful to the author (not what is meaningful to me or to you). In this case, I already had the following readings before interpreting this clause: reading of the "attribution" label at the end of the paragraph as "sparagmos" ; reading of the related word "thursos" in the immediately preceding clause ; reading of a semantically related verb after "thursos" in the immediately preceding clause ; reading of another Greek word for "love" with a different connotation in the immediately preceding clause. That is a significant number of context clues, is it not?

How can you be 100% sure that Ars is not "Iris"? What if the text is saying something slightly different from what you expect? What do you know of what was meaningful to the author?
You freely pick up meanings on the basis of what seems more likely to you. If the writer would have wanted to say that your thorsos wants Iris, he would have had no way to write it. Anything with r-s in it must be "eros", because you have decided that the context is such and such.

With all these degrees of freedom, you can do whatever you want. You can only do whatever you want. You make up the context, you make up the meaning. Maybe ars means eros because tors means thursos, or maybe ars means ouros because tors means theritos; this is your creative writing game. But if all you need is that the manuscript tells you that "a solitary thursos wants love", go with it. A manuscript that begins with as meaningful a question as "Is the mouth a form only?" will certainly be full of just as meaningful answers.

Regarding quasi-Judaeo-Greek "Ars" as Greek "Iris": Greek iota is actually the one Greek vowel that *does* have a more or less clear analogue in the Hebrew script, yod, which I believe the author encrypted as Voynich [e] or sometimes part of [ch]. (Honestly, it is often difficult to tell in certain less legible parts of the MS, whether a particular glyph should be read [ch] or [ee]. More precisely, in my description of the encryption steps, I would state that Hebrew he and chet ("h" letters) -> Voynich [ch], and Hebrew yod -> Voynich [e], but then as a secondary step, in some cases the author chose to encrypt Hebrew yod with the alternate character [ch], or as part of [ch].)

Since [e] and [ch] are entirely absent from the Voynich word, [ory], I would consider "Iris" a *much* less plausible original Greek meaning than "eros". If the writer would have wanted to say that his (not my) thorsos wants Iris, he would have been able to write it [cheory], or [chory], or even [chorchy]. Actually, guess what, that last word [chorchy] occurs exactly once in the Voynich MS text: on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Might the plant with the blue flower there perhaps look a little bit like...an iris? It's just an idea.

=====

theritos is not a very likely or plausible interpretation of tors, because there is no second "t" in tors. Whereas with thursos, we have the repetition of the s's as consecutive consonants. It is much more natural to expect the author not to necessarily write the double "s" in this case, especially since [y] shows many signs of occasional use as a more generic word ending abbreviation character, like the medieval Latin ms "9" symbol.

Yes, the beginning question "Is the mouth a form only?" is rather obscure, I admit. But keep in mind we may be dealing with Dionysian and/or Kabbalistic material here. Are you familar with the seminal medieval Kabbalistic text, the Zohar?

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

As the link notes, "The Zohar is mostly written in what has been described as a cryptic, obscure style of Aramaic."

Likewise, here in the Voynich MS text, might we not be sometimes dealing with a "cryptic, obscure style of Judaeo-Greek"?

=====

In any case, I'm very glad we are having this discussion. I'm very interested in this possible plant identification word [chorchy] = "iris" on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . I never would have been able to think of and pick out that word myself any time soon, with all the leads I'm exploring and all the discussions I'm attempting to keep up with here. Thank you for bringing up the word "Iris" in our discussion, so that I was prompted to think about its logical Voynich word structure in my system, search for it, and find it uniquely occurring on a page with a plant illustration with a blue flower. I will be sure to add this to the evidence for the Judaeo-Greek hypothesis.

Geoffrey
Next Oldest Next Newest

geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

Index

RE: interesting Greek reading of 1st line of f67r 1

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: Successful translation ?

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

RE: geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory