(02-10-2020, 11:55 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-10-2020, 09:01 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the connection to the Czech orthographical reform of the same time period, I would rather say, at most, that the VM could have been inspired by the same general social atmosphere in the region that inspired the tumultuous period of Jan Hus's life and the aftermath of his execution in Bohemia in the early 15th century. The Hussite Wars were one of the greatest and most significant social upheavals in all of late medieval Europe. The new orthography was related to demands for ecclesiastical reform and greater popular access to religious and other literature written in the spoken vernacular language of the people rather than in Latin. This went hand in hand with demands for reforms reducing the power of the church hierarchy and the clergy. 

Thanks for that historical background, Geoffrey. It sounds like a similar reason for most spelling reforms I've heard of — a way to raise literacy levels and reduce errors and misunderstandings in written communication.
I brought this up when you were building your Judeo-Greek theory, but I'm reminded again of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. My understanding of the Arabic writing system is that it's written like cursive Roman letters are supposed to be written: you draw one continuous line for a word, and then add in dots and other marks. There are a number of consonants in Arabic that are distinguished only by dots or lack thereof. Apparently someone who reads a lot of Arabic can read a text that contains only the lines, not the dots, and can guess based on context which consonants are intended.
Was, or is, diacritic-free Czech a similar tradition, that's well historically attested over a long period of time? I guess what I'm asking is, was there a long time period between native Czech speakers beginning to write to each other in their native language (instead of Latin), and folks like Jan Hus realizing that extant attempts to write Czech with the Roman alphabet were too ambiguous for effective communication? The Greeks and Italians both eliminated most of their diacritics in 20th century language standardizations and spelling reforms, which were no longer needed for written comprehension. Could the Czechs do, or have done, something similar, with no ill effects?

These are interesting comparisons, so I want to clarify what they do and don't have in common, to the best of my knowledge. Before the 15th century, Czech wasn't written in a particularly ambiguous way, it was just written with a lot of awkward Latin digraphs and trigraphs to represent single sounds. Now this could become ambiguous or confusing if people mixed up or couldn't understand which digraph/trigraph represented which sound. 

Dotless Arabic is interesting in its own right, but it is FAR more ambiguous than Czech without the diacritical marks! In Arabic, not only /t/ and /th/ but also even /b/ would appear identical without the dots! Likewise for /r/ and /z/. Dotless Arabic was a fair comparison to the ambiguity of my Judeo-Greek theory. Czech without diacritical marks, and my Slavic VCI interpretation, are far, far less ambiguous. 

It would be interesting to examine examples of the 17th century Czech documents that Rene mentions, to see how ambiguous those writings were if they did not indicate diacritical marks two centuries after the marks were introduced into Czech orthography. 

It would not be a good idea to eliminate diacritical marks from standard written Czech today! Czech with the diacritical marks remains one of the most phonemically precise and accurate writing systems in the world. The marks do not represent archaic distinctions that are no longer needed for comprehension -- they are far more significant than French é/ê/è, etc., for example. It's simply interesting that it is possible for Czechs to communicate and comprehend each other without the diacritics, despite the ambiguity that this omission indeed creates.

In case anyone is curious what a description of a Sorbian theory of the Voynich manuscript would look like, if the description itself were written in (Upper) Sorbian, here is an example: 

"Waženy [*****],
"Pisam Wam, přetož [*****] je doporučił mi wobroćić so na Was z woprašenjom na tule wěc. Slědźu tajny rukopis Wojniča (Voynicha) a sym wotkrył někotre daty wo tym, zo móžnje je napisan serbskej reču. Mam wulki zajim čitać Waše komentary k mojemu slědźenju. 
"Rukopis Wojniča je prěni króć dopokazan w historiskich zapisach w 17. lětstotku w Čěskeji, byrnjež jeho pergament je datěrowan do spočatka 15. lětstotka. Znajmjeńša je da móžne wobmysleć wo pochadu rukopisa w zapadnej słowjanskej rěčnej kónčinje. 
"Njedawno jedyn přeslědźer je přewjedł statistisku analyzu rukopisneho čitančka: <You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.> a <You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.>. Wón wobmysli wěste kombinacije značkow za jednotliwe jednotki, a tak w čitančku wotkry wjele přirodnišu rěčnu statistiku. Na tole slědźenje sym přewjedł swoju analyzu a interpretaciju tejele zběrki jednotkow jako doslědneho fonologickeho systema. Přewosobnje sym wotkrył, zo system je najbóle doslědny a prawomysłny, dalokož je jedyn rynk ligaturow a kombinacijow značkow interpretowan jako rynk palatalizowanych sobuzwukow, mjez druhim palatalizowanych zubnych a hubnych sobuzwukow. Tajki system je přirodnje charakteristiski dla słowjanskich rečow, a móžnje přewosobnje dla serbskeje reče.
"Tohorunja bě prawomysłna přičina, čehodla serbski spisowaćel na spočatku 15. lětstotka by pisał rukopis w tajnym alfabetu: serbska reč bě formalnje zakazana abo znajmjeńša njedowolena abo njepřiwzana w dobje wot 13. lětstotka do 16. lětstotka. (Helmut Faska napisa (přełožk): "The steady decrease in the size of the area where Sorbian is spoken was brought about by the following factors: the Old Sorbian tribes' loss of independence in the 10th century, the subsequent rural settlement of their territory by the Franks, Thuringians, and Saxons, the expansion of German cities and trade, and the official ban of the Sorbian language that came into effect in the 13th century. The Sorbian language was completely eradicated from territories outside Lusatia." <You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.> ) 
"Kuplowane dokumenty wopřijmje tabulki mojich interpretacijow "Wojničowych" značkow a kombinacijow jako zapadnych słowjanskich sobuzwukow a wokalow. Třeći dokument je inwentar 25 najčasćišich słowow w čitančku Wojničoweho rukopisa z jich serbskimi a čěskimi runohódnymi słowami pódla mojeje interpretacije. 
"Samo při wěrjepodobnej interpretaciji fonetiskich woznamow značkow we Wojničowym alfabetu, wostawa přirodnje jara wobćežne prawje čitać, interpretować a rozumić čitančko. Na přikład, niže podan zlemk spočina słowomaj "<ćec#  tal#>". Je móžne interpretować tej słowje jako "sće čitali". Ale wučitać a interpretować dlěši zlemk čitančka je wobćežne.
"Jowle je prěnich 26 rynkow strony You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Wojničoweho rukopisa, kotra je prěnja strona wotrězka z ilustracijemi figurow kupajicich so žonow w rołach z wodu, pódla mojeje interpretacije:
"<ćec#  tal#>  <dé#  nal  ž#  ćec#  mal  rjec#>
<co  že#  s#>  <ržez  nšec#  jec#tal  jetéc#  lw>
<no  jas>  <wje#  ne#  to  žét#  spo  ztal  w>
<cać#  stásch>  <#té#  sže#  tas  c#  že#  w  že#  néc#> 
<že#  tal  je#>  <će#  l  o  z  z  rjéc#  né#  n#>
<Pře#  téw  zt#>  <cal  de#  no  ipř#  néc#  n#>
<Přec#  nrjc#>  <#po  jec#  nal  i#  sz  jec#  n#>
<rw  je#  malc#>  <crjeć#  no  ić#  sžec#  déc#>
<nic#  ipř#  sch>  <nec#  nu  jeć#  nal  žec#  ras>
<crjw  mal  ic#>  <že#  no  ić#  c#  be#  pec#  šec#>
<néc#  no  z#>  <néc#  c#  nas  dal  rjec#  cw  jetás>
<ržeć#  nas  z#>  <že#  l  z  jé#  že#  c#  z  rjec#  n#>
<Přec#  téc#  nec#>  <nec#  nec#  nec#  no  zžec#>
<ro  z  térj#  no  c#>  <zžec#  no  ić#  no  bal  as#>
<ro  no  ns  téz#>  <ro  jec#  rz  w  rjec#  dic#  n#>
<crjec#  nal  rjéc#  š>  <ždo  i#  brjec#  no  jec#>
<Přecal  žePř#  sžecal#>  <cas  žas  ž#  tz  rjec#  nás>
<rz  rjéc#  ns  rjec#  ns>  <bo  jal  ral  z#>
<nrjec#  ns  že#  n#>  <že#  pře#  no  al>
<l#  že#  nw  je#  še#  sch> <#co  že#  no>
<chneto  je#  nćr#  w>  <#žew  z  sw  ás>
<žal  že#  no  jec#>  <w  že#  tal  jec#  ral>
<Pře#  trje#  né#  nas>  <rže#  ns  jec#  nás>
<no  zté#  nstal#>  <ro  jepř#  sw  z>
<ro  žć#  néc#  ž#  c#>  <néc#  šec#  lás>
<co  z  rjez  co  z  ns#>  <cal  ac#>
"Wuznamjenjeja so někotre słowa a frazy: Na přikład, "<nec#  nec#  nec#>" jara derje móžnje woznamjenjuje "nic nic nic". Tohorunja, "<nas>" abo "<ns>" zedźe so, zo je w prawomysłnych pozicijach w tajkimaj rynkomaj jako "<rz  rjéc#  ns  rjec#  ns>  <bo  jal  ral  z#>" a "<Pře#  trje#  né#  nas>  <rže#  ns  jec#  nás>". Ale nanowo, wučitać a interpretować dlěši zlemk tohole čitančka wostawa wobćežne. 
"Wulce Wam dźakuju so za čas, kotry sće sej wučitali a wobmyslili moju rozprawu. Rady bych sej wučitał Waše komentary k tomule slědźenju. 
"Z postrowom,
"[*****]" 

I highly recommend that anyone advancing a theory of the Voynich manuscript being written in a particular language, be asked to write a description of their theory in the language itself. 

Geoffrey

(04-10-2020, 03:02 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In case anyone is curious what a description of a Sorbian theory of the Voynich manuscript would look like, if the description itself were written in (Upper) Sorbian, here is an example: 

"Waženy [*****],

"Pisam Wam, přetož [*****] je doporučił mi wobroćić so na Was z woprašenjom na tule wěc. Slědźu tajny rukopis Wojniča (Voynicha) a sym wotkrył někotre daty wo tym, zo móžnje je napisan serbskej reču. Mam wulki zajim čitać Waše komentary k mojemu slědźenju." 

It occurred to me to see how it would look, if I took the Sorbian message that I composed, and encrypted it into the Voynich EVA transcription alphabet using my Slavic VCI interpretation system. The result of such a transcription of the first paragraph (quoted above) is presented below.

Emma may be interested to know that I often found myself using [y] for Sorbian "a" at the end of a syllable where the use of [a] did not fit Voynichese vord patterns. I noticed this above all when I had to write Sorbian "na", an extremely frequent preposition, and found [qoky] the best suited Voynich vord for it. To be honest I had been thinking of this expression conceptually as "unwritten /a/ + vord-final null [y]", but obviously this amounts to the same thing as the [y] representing /a/ ! 

It has also become clear to me from this exercise that [ol] must sometimes represent "s" as well as "z". Naturally it is to be expected that there will have to be other refinements to the system as the investigation of the hypothesis proceeds. 

[orsheey qokchy ...]

[pchol qopy or qopy pshey faiin shy ...]
[chey okaiin taiin s or dchor qotchy orain]
[oty saiin dchy dy laiin qoky oral ol oraiin]
[ty salchey qockhaiin qoty qoky kor or orchedy]
[ol rcheockhor kchy qokchy s or daiin tchol]
[oraiin chy qokchdy qokchdy lchy qoty orain]
[dshor qokeey daiin kshey oky kchy oraiin kchy]
[qoty olaiin qotaiin shy qockhey chey qoky tchy]
[ol qoky ols oty ltey sey dor qoty qoty oror dy]
[ol chy qoty dchy ky dy or lchey daiin qoteey qoky]
[kshy dy qotaiin chey qotor ol rcheockhey qockhor]

Geoffrey

And this may be an especially interesting comparison: The first paragraph of my Sorbian message, and then the result after encrypting it into Voynich EVA transcription--aiming for the most "Voynichese"-like vord structure possible--and then decrypting the latter back into my Slavic VCI interpretation:

"Waženy [*****],
Pisam Wam, přetož [*****] je doporučił mi wobroćić so na Was z woprašenjom na tule wěc. Slědźu tajny rukopis Wojniča (Voynicha) a sym wotkrył někotre daty wo tym, zo móžnje je napisan serbskej reču. Mam wulki zajim čitać Waše komentary k mojemu slědźenju."

<wžé# ni# ...>
<Piz M# w M# Pře# To ž# ...> <je# do po r u ciw mi# wo> <b# ro ci# c# so n# was z wo> <p# raše# njo m# n# tu w wjec#> <z ljedźu tj# ni# r u ko piz> <wo j# nic# wo j# nic# si# m# wo> <kriw né# ko trje# d# ti# wo ti#> <m# zo mo ž# nje# je# n# pi#> <z n# zr b# ske# re# cu m# m# wu ki#> <z j# m# ci# t# c# w še# ko mé# n#> <tri# k# mo je# mu z ljedźe# nju>

I believe that with some practice and experience with the system, the latter reading would be comprehensible by a Sorbian speaker as representing the Sorbian text above it. It is notable that "a" often seems to be an unwritten "default" vowel, except in particular contexts. 

Geoffrey

For those forum members who are still following this thread, I would like to provide a brief update on my progress with the Sorbian theory of the Voynich manuscript text.

The following are lines 17-20 on Voynich ms folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , the first page of quire 13, the "bathing women" or balneological or biological section of the ms. This excerpt is part of the much longer passage, the first 26 lines of page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , that I rendered into my "Slavic VCI" reading/interpretation of the Voynich script in previous posts in this thread. 

<Přecal  žePř#  sžecal#>  <cas  žas  ž#  tz  rjec#  nás>
<rz  rjéc#  ns  rjec#  ns>  <bo  jal  ral  z#>
<nrjec#  ns  že#  n#>  <že#  pře#  no  al>
<l#  že#  nw  je#  še#  sch> <#co  že#  no>

The vord sequence "<že# n->" fits quite well as forms of the root "žena", the word for "woman" found quite widely across Slavic languages.

The glyph sequence "<pře>/<př>" fits well as forms of the West Slavic prepositions and prefixes "pře", "při", "přez", "před".

The vord "<nas>/<ns>" fits well as the Slavic form "nas", meaning "us" (accusative case).

I had been bothered by the vord sequence "<rjec# nas>/<rjec# ns>", since the West Slavic verbs such as Sorbian "rjec", "rěčeć", meaning "speak, say, talk, tell", should take the dative case, not the accusative case: If this sequence had the meaning "tell us", the object "us" should be in the dative case as "nam", not in the accusative case as "nas".

Now I find a much better interpretation, both grammatically and semantically: Sorbian has a verb "rjedźić", meaning "to clean, to cleanse, to purify, to clear". It should take an object in the accusative case, not the dative case. 

Not only does the interpretation of "<rjec# nas>/<rjec# ns>" as a Sorbian phrase meaning "cleanse us" work grammatically, it also fits quite well semantically with the illustrations of bathing women on this page and throughout this section of the manuscript.

Geoffrey

(07-10-2020, 06:23 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The glyph sequence "<pře>/<př>" fits well as forms of the West Slavic prepositions and prefixes "pře"...

If prepositions and prefixes are involved, should they not be distributed evenly throughout the text of the manuscript?

(08-10-2020, 10:32 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2020, 06:23 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The glyph sequence "<pře>/<př>" fits well as forms of the West Slavic prepositions and prefixes "pře"...

If prepositions and prefixes are involved, should they not be distributed evenly throughout the text of the manuscript?

I don't think it is possible to know the answer to that question for certain, until we know more about the nature of the text of the manuscript and its various sections and parts.