(12-08-2026, 07:14 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Erbsküchlein (Peacakes)

But that is a compound Erbs + küchlein, so that "s" is logically word-final...

Quote:Spislin (Skewer)

That is "Spis" plus the diminutive suffix "lin" (modern "lein") . 

Quote:Can we now accept the "8" in the "palsen" as a possible  “s” and the other "8" as possible “s” as well?

Not yet... Note that those "s" you found are just a bit taller than minim-height and are written like small "B"s (a straight vertical left stroke and a "3"-like right stroke.   The "8"s of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are much taller and are drawn in a very different way, more like Voynichese d (an e-like left stroke, then a plume that loops, crosses itself, and ends on the baseline in a reverse-e stroke, completing a round body).

Moreover, it is not clear whether the writer would consider the hypothetical "palsen" to be a compound of "pals" + "en", like "Spislin" = "Spis + lin" and Erbsküchlein" = "Erbs" + "küchlein".  Your claim would be more convincing if you found an example ending in "-sen"  with an 8-shaped "s".

All the best, --stolfi

@ Stolfi: You can't be serious. 

You guys didn't want to believe that the "8" could be written larger than lowercase letters—I proved that. Now it's not big enough??? a.o. Seriously? And this in a medieval manuscript, where many personal quirks come into play when writing a letter? (take a look at how strangely he writes the “b”)

You guys refused to believe that the “8” as an “s” can appear not only at the end of a word but also within a word. I proved that too—not with one, but with two examples!

And now the counterargument being put forward is that, while it does exist within a word—something that was previously dismissed as completely nonsensical—it’s supposedly because the first example involves “two words written together” (what kind of argument is that , the 8 IS in the middle!) and then, in the second example, syllables or endings have to be taken into account? 


For even if that were the case: “en” is by far the most common final syllable in German. A German writer could have interpreted it as “pals-en,”

That would be typical, e.g., with verbs: bau -> bauen / riech - riechen, lauf -> laufen, renn -> rennen (in each case, the root is used this way, e.g., as an imperative: bau! and also in the form of: ich bau (i built)/ and bauen = infinitive)

But even with nouns that have an “s” before the “en,” such as “Wesen, Eisen, Gewissen, Kissen, etc.,” the “en” is clearly recognizable as an ending. Certainly, ‘sen’ and “en” are two possible syllables here, but in the Middle Ages, this clear distinction did not exist - that is modern German (This can be seen in the highly varied and, often unusual hyphenation in the manuscripts from the time).

So that’s not an argument against it either.

The fact is: There are 8=s in the middle of words.

Even if you don’t like that because it weakens your theory that this is a desperate attempt to reconstruct Voynichese, you need significantly (!) more assumptions to support this thesis.

The likelihood that it’s just a normal charm in the form of a marginal note is much higher. Especially since there are so many German words in it, including “palsen” = “balsam” 
and the typical Charm words. six marix morix vix (six = "sechs", vix = "schnell" (fast))

so nim (so take)
gas = es af 
mich = (me)

And no, I'm not going to keep looking for something; I've already proven my point.

(13-08-2026, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Stolfi: You can't be serious. 

You guys didn't want to believe that the "8" could be written larger than lowercase letters—I proved that. Now it's not big enough??? a.o. Seriously? And this in a medieval manuscript, where many personal quirks come into play when writing a letter? (take a look at how strangely he writes the “b”)

You guys refused to believe that the “8” as an “s” can appear not only at the end of a word but also within a word. I proved that too—not with one, but with two examples!

And now the counterargument being put forward is that, while it does exist within a word—something that was previously dismissed as completely nonsensical—it’s supposedly because the first example involves “two words written together” (what kind of argument is that , the 8 IS in the middle!) and then, in the second example, syllables or endings have to be taken into account? 


For even if that were the case: “en” is by far the most common final syllable in German. A German writer could have interpreted it as “pals-en,”

That would be typical, e.g., with verbs: bau -> bauen / riech - riechen, lauf -> laufen, renn -> rennen (in each case, the root is used this way, e.g., as an imperative: bau! and also in the form of: ich bau (i built)/ and bauen = infinitive)

But even with nouns that have an “s” before the “en,” such as “Wesen, Eisen, Gewissen, Kissen, etc.,” the “en” is clearly recognizable as an ending. Certainly, ‘sen’ and “en” are two possible syllables here, but in the Middle Ages, this clear distinction did not exist - that is modern German (This can be seen in the highly varied and, often unusual hyphenation in the manuscripts from the time).

So that’s not an argument against it either.

The fact is: There are 8=s in the middle of words.

Even if you don’t like that because it weakens your theory that this is a desperate attempt to reconstruct Voynichese, you need significantly (!) more assumptions to support this thesis.

The likelihood that it’s just a normal charm in the form of a marginal note is much higher. Especially since there are so many German words in it, including “palsen” = “balsam” 
and the typical Charm words. six marix morix vix (six = "sechs", vix = "schnell" (fast))

so nim (so take)
gas = es af 
mich = (me)

And no, I'm not going to keep looking for something; I've already proven my point.

You don't have to search, but you can analyze it
In fact, I think it might be a clumsily written letter s in the form of an 8. But at the same time, we must remember that, in general, the font You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not very close to the "classic" one (which has many manuscripts written on it, like the ones you gave as an example, @JoJo_Jost), and 8 may not be the only s.
 Let me share a few assumptions:
1). All three glyphs of 8 on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are different. This may be because the author wrote these marginalia with a thin pen (compared to other European manuscripts, the letters on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are quite small) and, perhaps, was very poorly able to use it. This can also be indirectly confirmed by the different shapes of the letter b (in one case it is angular, in the other it is rounded).
2). The author could see how s was written as 8, but did not understand how it was written that way, and tried to reproduce it.
3). If the author of the marginalia was one of the VMS scribes, then he could, out of habit, write d instead of s-8. I don't see anything strange in this, because having written about 200 pages of an unknown letter to you, over time some of its features will become a habit.

(13-08-2026, 06:43 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You guys didn't want to believe that the "8" could be written larger than lowercase letters—I proved that.

But while your examples are indeed a bit taller than minim-height, they are still smaller than the "8"s of f116v, and, more importantly, very different in shape and stroke order.  They do not prove your point al all.

Quote:You guys refused to believe that the “8” as an “s” can appear not only at the end of a word but also within a word. I proved that too ...  And now the counterargument [is that] the first example involves “two words written together” (what kind of argument is that , the 8 IS in the middle!)

I suppose you are aware that Germanwriters have the disconcertinghabit of omitting wordspaces in longnominalphrases.    

Quote:in the second example, syllables or endings have to be taken into account?

The counterclaim is that the special "small 8" letter "s" shape can be used at the end of a word even when that word is part of a compound noun. The first example would fit this hypothetical rule. The second example could fit it if the writer thought of the "lin" as a word that was joined to "spis" by the German word-sticking habit, rather than an inflection.  That is why your point wouldbe helped by an example of a word ending in "-sen" with a small-8 letter "s".

Quote:Even if you don’t like that because it weakens your theory that this is a desperate attempt to reconstruct Voynichese, you need significantly (!) more assumptions to support this thesis.

Again, the only assumptions that my theory needs are (1) originally there were three lines of Voynichese script on f116v, and (2) whoever tried to repair the damage did not know the Voynichese alphabet and did not realize that the text had to be Voynichese.  Everything else is either facts well-supported by evidence from the images, or a natural consequences of those facts and assumptions.

Quote:The likelihood that it’s just a normal charm in the form of a marginal note is much higher. Especially since there are so many German words in it

You need many more assumptions.  For half the words,you must assume that they mean something in some hypothetical obscure dialect of German, even though they don't sound German or Latin at all.  For those that you think have meaning:

• “palsen = balsam” -- you must assume that the "8" is an "s".
  
• "the typical Charm words six marix morix vix" -- there is no example of a charm with those words, is there?
  
• "gas = es af" -- you must assume that the "g" is an "e" smashed with a third form of the "s" letter.
  

And, even with all those assumptions, there is not a single sentence that makes sense...

All the best, --stolfi

(13-08-2026, 09:58 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But while your examples are indeed a bit taller than minim-height, they are still smaller than the "8"s of f116v, and, more importantly, very different in shape and stroke order.  They do not prove your point al all.

I’ve seen it several times that the 8 at the end was written larger. And the 8 in the VMS is indeed larger than the lowercase letters, but also smaller than the letters with ascenders. So exactly as in the example I provided.

And as I said, there’s really no need to dwell on the style of handwriting. I’ve seen all sorts of variations of the rounded “s.” This line of reasoning really leads nowhere.

(13-08-2026, 09:58 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I suppose you are aware that Germanwriters have the disconcertinghabit of omitting wordspaces in longnominalphrases.    

Yes, but the actual word is “Erbsen” or “Erbse”; here, “Erbs” is a shortened form in which the ‘en’ / “e” is missing. And in that sense, it’s probably related to the fact that the word is written as one word. Normally, the “s” here would be written with a long “s.”

“lin” = “lein” is a diminutive form—an added syllable—so “lin” has no independent status relative to the syllable “spis.”

The two examples are so good precisely because you can assume that in one case, but not in the other. 

(13-08-2026, 09:58 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That is why your point wouldbe helped by an example of a word ending in "-sen" with a small-8 letter "s".

Unfortunately, it’s a bit difficult to find texts like that, because very few of them specify exactly which “s” was used. I’ve provided the evidence; just because you don’t like it—and for very questionable reasons at that—I don't search any longer. 

Because even if that were the case, you’re assuming there were very strict rules, but there weren’t. You can see this in the examples itself.

1. In “Spislein,” two different “s”s are used in a single word: the long “s” at the beginning and the round “s” in the middle.

And as for the other round “s” = 8, which even appears in the middle of a sentence at the beginning of the word “so,” (after wiltu) I was able to refute your objection that it was the beginning of a sentence, since it’s written differently (after wiltu) depending on the paragraph.

So we also have another example of an “s” as 8 at the beginning of a word!
I really don’t think I need to provide any more examples just because you don’t want to believe it. The examples shows that there was a writing anarchy!

----
Well, the very idea that he never saw other parts of the VMS is more than questionable and unlikely. If that were the case, how could he have written those two clearly recognizable VMS words in 116?

1. But you have other problems as well: Obviously, he recognized the tokens, but three words in nearly consecutive order ending in an 8 (which he would have had to construct) are extremely rare in the Voynich Manuscript.

2. The beginning would be an “m” (mchiton); “m” almost never appears at the beginning. 

3. The same applies to “marix morix”—well, maybe he read “aiin” as “m,” but then what was encrypted as “ix,” which comes after “aiin”?

4. The downward-pointing “q” strokes would therefore have to have originated from the “y,” but in 116 they exclusively appear at the beginning of words. I know this does happen in the VMS too, but it’s much rarer.

So the question is, how much else was he able to read, and what did he make of it? But if you look at the handwriting, it somehow doesn’t look like incorrectly reconstructed Voynich text—not as a single word, but when viewed as a whole.

Stolfi, your theory is based on the assumptions that the author was very stupid, didn't know how to flip through the book, did not know how to distinguish Voynichese from Latin, and was also very persistent in his attempt to rewrite the text.
In any case, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is most likely some kind of spell. What matters is not whether the words are meaningful (I have already given examples of spells: Peda inpeda. Prepeda. Conpeda prepedias inpediae. Conpedia and Porro porro poto zelo zelo zebeta arra array paraclitus. Do they make much sense?). Regarding f116v, another question is whether such a spell has ever been used.
The similarity of the handwriting (especially in the chi moment) can be explained by the fact that it was written by one of the scribes. This is the only assumption that this theory requires.

(14-08-2026, 05:44 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And as I said, there’s really no need to dwell on the style of handwriting. I’ve seen all sorts of variations of the rounded “s.” This line of reasoning really leads nowhere.

On the contrary, this is a very important point.  The difference between your "small s" examples and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "8" are not just "style of handwriting".  They are different shapes.  Different letters.  As different as a Latin capital "B" is different from a Latin digit "8". 

Quote:the actual word [in "Erbsküchlein"] is “Erbsen” or “Erbse”; here, “Erbs” is a shortened form in which the ‘en’ / “e” is missing.

That may be the case when when word is alone, but in that compound the word is "Erbs".

Quote:“lin” = “lein” is a diminutive form—an added syllable—so “lin” has no independent status relative to the syllable “spis.” The two examples are so good precisely because you can assume that in one case, but not in the other.

I proposed that the writer of your recipe book followed this rule: 

• The small form of "s" is used at the end of a word, whether that is alone of part of a compound; and a word plus "-lin" ("-lein") counts as a compound. Otherwise the long form of "s" is used.
  

You seems to be proposing that the writers of that recipe book and of 116v followed instead the rule

• Feel free to use the small form or the long form of "s", indifferently, at any position, even at the start of a word.
  

The examples you provided are consistent with my proposed rule.  They are consistent with your rule too, sure; but forgive me if I find that rule unlikely (and a cop-out).

Quote:And as for the other round “s” = 8, which even appears in the middle of a sentence at the beginning of the word “so,” (after wiltu) I was able to refute your objection that it was the beginning of a sentence, since it’s written differently (after wiltu) depending on the paragraph.

Technically it not the beginning of a sentence, but that letter is definitely neither a "short s" nor a "long s", it is a capital "S".  It is a natural choice to indicate the end of the recipe's "title" and the start of the recipe proper.  It is as if one wrote in an English cookbook:
"If you want to make pancakes Take a cup of flour ..."
Today, the correct way to write that sentence would be
"If you want to make pancakes: take a cup of flour ..."
with a lowercase "t".  But people often write
"If you want to make pancakes: Take a cup of flour ..."
with a capital "T", just to emphasize the break between "title" and "recipe".
Now, recall that European manuscripts of that time had no punctuation whatsoever...

Quote:Well, the very idea that he never saw other parts of the VMS is more than questionable and unlikely.

He probably looked at a few other pages, but that would not tell him that the lost text had to be Voynichese.  

If he looked at the Zodiac diagrams, he would have seen the month names in Latin script.  Then he could easily have concluded that the the lost text could have been Latin script too.

WE know that the lost text had to be Voynichese because we have read every square centimeter of the book, twenty times over, so WE know that there is absolutely no Latin script in the whole book -- except the month names, which most people seem to agree that are not original. 

Quote:If that were the case, how could he have written those two clearly recognizable VMS words in f116v?

Because those words were not erased when he wiped the water out.  Unfortunately the ultraviolet image is not clear on that spot, but it seems pretty likely that the water spill missed those two words, so the ink was not softened hence not wiped off.

Quote:Obviously, he recognized the tokens, but three words in nearly consecutive order ending in an 8 (which he would have had to construct) are extremely rare in the Voynich Manuscript.

What do you mean?  Obviously he did not recognize the original Voynichese words.  The only consecutive words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that end in "8" are "ola8aba8" and "multo8".  If the original erased Voynichese text was like the surviving aror Sheey, then there could easily have been three or more tokens in the space spanned by "ola8aba8 + multo8".  Perhaps there were d glyphs where the Repairman wrote those three "8"; but they need not have been at the end of tokens, much less of consecutive tokens. 

Quote:The beginning would be an “m” (mchiton); “m” almost never appears at the beginning.

The beginning of that word looks more like Latin "an" than Latin "m".  Even if it is an "m", the Repairman did not write that "m" because he saw traces of an m and he knew that the EVA code for that glyph is "m"!  

Quote:The same applies to “marix morix”—well, maybe he read “aiin” as “m,” but then what was encrypted as “ix,” which comes after “aiin”?

We cannot tell how many of the Latin letters that the Repairman wrote were based on partly erased Voynichese glyphs and how many were just guessed on blank vellum.  Again, he probably saw a couple of vestiges of gallows that looked like crosses. Since there was no Latin letter that fit those vestiges (not even the capital "T"), he guessed that the line was a charm, and those crosses were the sign-of-the-cross marks, and so he inserted a cross at every word space, like in typical charms.  

A similar explanation then could account for the "x": he saw bits of one or two Voynichese ls, guessed that they were final "x", and so ended all words of the charm with "x", like many popular charms of the times: "pax, nax, vax", "dux, lux, lex, rex", etc.. 

But AFAIK no one has found any instance of a charm using any of the words "six", "marix", "morix", or "abia".  Have they?

Quote:The downward-pointing “q” strokes would therefore have to have originated from the “y,”

The tail of the y is always bent, so maybe the "y" of "pbrey" and/or the "g" of "gaf" were originally y.   Which is consistent with those letters being word-final and word-initial, respectively.

On the other hand, the straight vertical descenders of the Latin "p"s in f116v, if not invented whole cloth by the Repairman, must have been calqued on remains of Voynichese qs.  Which is consistent with all "p"s on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. being word-initial. (Except the second "p" of "potpfer" on line 1, if that is indeed a "p".  But that whole line was probably made up by the Repairman from stains left by the wiped ink on what had been blank vellum.)

Quote:So the question is, how much else was he able to read, and what did he make of it?

Again, we don't know how many letters were based on smudges left over from the wiping, and how many were pure guesses on blank velum.  Thus, we cannot tell with any confidence what would have been the original Voynichese text; not even where the words and word breaks were.  

But any of the "8" could have been ds, any of the tall letters and crosses could have been gallows, any of the "ch" could have been platform gallows, any of the "a"s could have been es, and so on...

And those "to", "te", "ce", "ta" on line 2 as well as the garbled "ctev" strongly suggest that there were Chs there.  

The second line stops at mid-width, except for two uncertain smudges at the far right.  Maybe the original Voynichese line stopped there too.  But maybe the second line was full-width (that is, the three lines were a normal paragraph), but the right half was so completely erased that today we cannot even tell whether there was any text there at all.

Quote:But if you look at the handwriting, it somehow doesn’t look like incorrectly reconstructed Voynich text—not as a single word, but when viewed as a whole.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree.  That handwriting is totally not natural. The letters are all ungainly, misaligned, with widely varying sizes and spacing.  As one would expect from a slow attempt to reconstruct a text letter by letter, in random order...

All the best, --stolfi

(14-08-2026, 09:35 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stolfi, your theory is based on the assumptions that the author was very stupid, didn't know how to flip through the book, did not know how to distinguish Voynichese from Latin

Not at all.  He could have been a Kepler.  He just did not care enough about the manuscript to study its writing in any detail.  

Not everyone who sees the manuscript will become as nerdishly obsessed with it as we are (or like Barschius may have been). 

The VMS today looks like "the most mysterious manuscript in the world"  that demands to be deciphered.  But until 100 years ago it was just an odd manuscript written in some unknown script with somewhat strange figures, like many others that would have been found in any large library or book shop.  That is, its "weirdness" would not have been particularly notable.  

When Kircher received it, he probably did not spend more than half an hour browsing through it, before telling his secretary to file it in the "generic miscellanea" section of his library, in the "weird scripts" shelf.

The owner at the time of the "Big Wipe" incident could have inherited it from a weird uncle, or could have bought it for the same reason that I once got a dictionary of Estonian, an Asterix album in Latin, and the Popol Vuh in Kiche Maya language: just on an impulse of curiosity, with no intention of studying them in any depth.

Quote:and he was also very persistent in his attempt to rewrite the text.  

The Repairman may have been the owner of the book.  He naturally felt that any reconstruction, no matter how incorrect, would be better than just leaving that text erased for good.

Or the Repairman may have been a relative or acquaintance of the owner, or a student who checked the book out of the Collegio Romano library.  Then his goal may have been primarily to cover up the damage he did, hoping that the owner would not notice until it was too late for him to identify the culprit. 

Or the Repairman may have been a librarian or monk struggling to salvage a bunch of books affected by a roof leak.  He wiped off the water from other manuscripts with no damage, because they were written in iron-gall ink.  But when he did the same to the VMS, OOPS!!! "Damn, what do I do now?"

Quote:In any case, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is most likely some kind of spell.

Indeed, the crosses in the "anchiton" and "six" lines mean that those two lines are definitely a Christian charm -- now. 

But that is just what the Repairman guessed, and tried to reconstruct those lines as such.  It does not imply that the original text was a charm.

Quote:What matters is not whether the words are meaningful (I have already given examples of spells: Peda inpeda. Prepeda. Conpeda prepedias inpediae. Conpedia and Porro porro poto zelo zelo zebeta arra array paraclitus.

And I am not asking for the words in the "anchiton" and "six" lines to make sense.  Being words from a charm, they do not have to.  

But still, they would have to be pronounceable, and either sound "magical" (like "Abra cadabra" or your "Porro" example), or sound like they have some obscure meaning (like your "Peda ...Conpedia" example: the words sound like Latin and have valid Latin prefixes and Latin-like inflections). 

But  that is not the case for the "anchiton" line.  One of the words is not even readable...

It would help your claim if there were any other examples of charms with any of the words "six", "marix", "morix", or "abia".  Are there?

Quote:The similarity of the handwriting (especially in the chi moment) can be explained by the fact that it was written by one of the scribes. This is the only assumption that this theory requires.

Do you mean that the Scribe wrote a Latin script "chi" that vaguely resembles parts of a Voynichese platform gallows because he had written a lot of Voynichese?  That is not how things work.  I had to write a lot of Hiragana when I was trying to learn Japanese, but that did not change the way I wrote Latin letters.  Our brain is very good at keeping those things separate.  Someone who plays both piano and violin will not look for the pedals when playing the latter...

All the best, --stolfi

I’m out of this discussion—there’s nothing more I can do. I’ve provided all the evidence that was requested, and now everything is being twisted. I’m done with this kind of discussion. If someone refuses to acknowledge just how chaotic writing was in the Middle Ages and tries to see rules everywhere there weren’t any, what else is there to say to that person?

By the way, my wife studied German literature, specializing in the Middle Ages. She agrees with me that there were no rules, and she reads along here from time to time...

So, believe whatever you want...

(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He just did not care enough about the manuscript to study its writing in any detail.

Assumption.

(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He naturally felt that any reconstruction, no matter how incorrect, would be better than just leaving that text erased for good.

Assumption.

(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or the Repairman may have been a relative or acquaintance of the owner, or a student who checked the book out of the Collegio Romano library. Then his goal may have been primarily to cover up the damage he did, hoping that the owner would not notice until it was too late for him to identify the culprit.

And it sounds interesting with relatives. A hypothetical grandmother could accidentally ruin a book belonging to her beloved grandson

(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(like your "Peda ...Conpedia" example: the words sound like Latin and have valid Latin prefixes and Latin-like inflections).

They can be said to parody the word “inpediae”.

(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It would help your claim if there were any other examples of charms with any of the words "six", "marix", "morix", or "abia". Are there?

Why “abia” and not “ahta/abta”?
Also, even though the text itself is not spoken, there are certain meaningful lines. The second line is a spell, the third is what needs to be done (to use, apparently, balm and goat’s milk).

(14-08-2026, 04:22 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you mean that the Scribe wrote a Latin script "chi" that vaguely resembles parts of a Voynichese platform gallows because he had written a lot of Voynichese? That is not how things work. I had to write a lot of Hiragana when I was trying to learn Japanese, but that did not change the way I wrote Latin letters. Our brain is very good at keeping those things separate. Someone who plays both piano and violin will not look for the pedals when playing the latter...

Voynichese is not Japanese. In terms of style, it’s the same cursive script as Latin. The scribe could easily have developed a skill and written e instead of c, and rendered the “ch” combinations as a gallows on a pedestal.