• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Critique wanted

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Critique wanted
• Critique wanted

• Critique wanted

  KJ now > 10 hours ago

  Title: POLER-D Method: Transparent Translation Framework from a Curious Independent
  
  
  Hello everyone,
  
     I’d like to take a moment to share the methodology I’ve been developing and refining over time. A phonetic (oral) framework I call POLER-D, short for Phonetic-Oral Linguistic Encoding Reconstruction-Diachronic variant. Recently I began posting translation snippets and findings from this process over on X (Twitter) under @VoynichUnleash for critique, but wanted to offer an overview here on Voynich Ninja. Both for transparency and to welcome any feedback from those more experienced in historical linguistics, cryptography, or manuscript studies.
     First and foremost this isn’t a commercial venture, nor a gimmick. I’m not selling anything. I’m driven by deep curiosity and respect for the mystery of the Voynich Manuscript. I believe it's good to explore any method (however unconventional) that helps unlock the possible history within it. I understand that skepticism is healthy and necessary, and I welcome it. But I also want to be clear that this is not a “solved it” post. This method is a work in progress, and one that has already challenged many of my own original assumptions. In fact, most of my early theories have been overturned through application and cross testing. I’m not afraid of being wrong, but it would be a shame not trying.
  
  What Is POLER-D?
  
     POLER-D is built around the idea that the Voynich Manuscript uses a disguised phonetic encoding system. Drawing from spoken (and often unwritten or drifted) dialects from Northern and Eastern Europe and nearby regions as they existed after 1300AD.
  
   Here’s how it works:
  
     We begin with EVA (European Voynich Alphabet) transcriptions of the manuscript text. Then carefully align with standardized formats available in public datasets.
     Each word is then broken down phonetically, not visually, using oral sounding reconstructions as if the scribe was encoding sound, not meaning. 
  
  For example:
  shedy > skaidan / skēd (Germanic root: to speak)
  kai > kaido / kaijan (Baltic: keeper/guardian)
  chol >chwal / sol (Slavic/Hebrew: soul)
  
     From there, we test drifted linguistic matches against known post-1300 forms in a selected group of languages (listed below), adjusting for diachronic shifts.
     We also match results against imagery on the same folios like plants, figures, cosmological diagrams, etc. This is not cherry picking, it's about whether what we decode reflects what we see.
  
     Each translation is checked against a stable pool of phonetic and written languages, with no additions unless justified. Results that don’t fit are discarded or flagged for review.
  
  Languages We Use (Post-1300 Parameter Tightening)
  
  To avoid the common pitfall of “too many possible matches,” we’ve restricted POLER-D to languages and dialects that were actively spoken or transitioning after 1300, including:
  
  Proto-Germanic derivatives: Middle High German, Old Norse, Old Saxon
  Celtic: Gaulish remnants, Middle Welsh, Irish phonetics (oral influence)
  Slavic: Old Church Slavonic, Old Czech, Old Polish
  Romance: Vulgar Latin, Middle French, Occitan, Italian dialects
  Greek: Koine and transitional forms
  Hebrew: Classical/Biblical Hebrew (as a known scholarly base)
  Finnic/Uralic: Karelian, Hungarian
  Latin alphabet: All reconstruction uses era-consistent Latin script, no anachronisms
     As a base study we tested historical languages throughout the world with POLER-D and none worked beyond the northern and eastern European tribal areas.
  
  Note: Etruscan and other unrelated ancient scripts were excluded deliberately. This isn’t about guessing or using every ancient language. It’s about limiting our pool to reasonable cultural and temporal candidates. We continue shrink parameters when possible. 
  
  
  Current Findings
  
     We’re seeing internal consistency across a number of tested folios. Including those from the herbal, cosmological, and so-called "recipes" sections. Some patterns emerging:
  Ritual herbalism, not just plant identification, but instructions, applications, and contexts
  Ritualistic bathing, including symbolic language around purification and preparation
  Astronomical cycles, likely ritual calendar components tied to lunar or planetary phases
  Hermetic influence, recurring themes of balance, fire/water opposites, ascension, and transformation
      Interpretations match imagery surprisingly well so far. We continue to apply this method across random folios (e.g., f1r, f67r, f54r, etc.) to test for stability.
     I’m documenting the process in real time, including changes as they happen, at @VoynichUnleash on X. You’ll find raw phonetic samples, before/after comparisons, and posts noting where translations are being adjusted. This is about open research, not a closed theory.
  
  
  
  Sample Entry
  
  Here’s a real breakdown using POLER-D from f1r:
  EVA: otedy shedy laram ychor
  POLER-D Phonetic: ot-ed-ē / skēd / lar-an / i-khor
  Possible Translation: “To speak the flowing essence (divine fluid)”
  Matched Imagery: A root based plant drawn as if exuding fluid, possibly used in ritual speech or invocation.
  
     POLER-D is evolving. We expect some variation in future translations as our parameters improve and mistakes are corrected. But the method is holding strong so far under repeated tests. If you’re skeptical, that’s good. This project is self funded and critique is free.I welcome engagement, suggestions, and yes, critique. I’m not a credentialed linguist or cryptographer, just a persistent researcher who’s stumbled my way into a tool that appears to be uncovering something meaningful.
      Now strongly suspected that the Voynich Manuscript was authored by multiple classically trained scribes, not a single individual. This theory is supported by earlier work from paleographers like Lisa Fagin Davis, who identified at least five distinct scribal hands based on letter formation, writing angles, and stylistic patterns across the manuscript. Our findings align with hers, subtle shifts in phrasing, vocabulary range, and glyph formation all suggest collaboration. These scribes likely shared training in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, but also picked up oral phonetic dialects through travel, allowing them to encode their knowledge in ways that reflected both elite training and folk wisdom.
      We believe the Voynich Manuscript represents a collection of ritual practices, likely from preChristian or pagan traditions. Encoded not merely to protect “secrets,” but possibly to shield the content from persecution or prejudice. The use of a disguised phonetic script, rather than a true cipher, supports this idea. About 6 months ago AI was brought in to use to speed up the process and is now showing amazing potential. It took time to enter in all the parameters used, but once AI learned everything it began returning word by word and phrase by phrase to be assessed. I now feel it's a proper methodology to share on multiple platforms and began several days ago.This has been countless hrs spanning yrs of work prior to AI’s introduction. I want that to be cclear.i welcome all critique. 
  
  Thanks for reading,
  KJ
  (@VoynichUnleash on X)

• RE: Critique wanted

  RadioFM > 9 hours ago

  So are you trying to match and map the EVA transcription (e.g. "otedy shedy") to other languages based on similarities, or was that just an example? Because if so, that'd undermine the whole thing IMO

• RE: Critique wanted

  KJ now > 7 hours ago

  (9 hours ago)RadioFM Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So are you trying to match and map the EVA transcription (e.g. "otedy shedy") to other languages based on similarities, or was that just an example? Because if so, that'd undermine the whole thing IMO

  
  Hey, totally fair question and I appreciatethe thoughtful pushback. Also, love the glyph on your profile. I ran it through our POLER-D framework, and it seems to say “it is Sacred word” or “the essence is declared”. Would that be an accurate interpretation on your end?
  
  To your main point though, we don’t just match EVA glyphs to other languages by surface similarity. That would undermine everything. What we’re doing instead with POLER-D is:
  
  Phonetic drift modeling across post 1300 phonetic languages. EVA> phoneme groups> Latin>English
  
  Consistent syllable parsing, guided by diachronic sound rules (exampl: how "k" > "ch" > "sh" in Germanic/Slavic shifts)
  
  Latin as a neutral anchor. It helps maintain structure and limits cherry picking
  AI implementation, now that our parameters are set, every line goes through the same system without guesswork or intuition. That removes confirmation bias from the equation.
  When ritualistic or botanical patterns show up across multiple unrelated folios, we’re not projecting meaning, we’re surfacing it.
  
  Let me know what you think. I’m always open to better ways of testing this system.

• RE: Critique wanted

  oshfdk > 1 hour ago

  Hi and welcome!
  
  It's hard for me to understand the details of your system, it looks very complex.
  
  Is it OK if we do a simple test instead?
  Can your system decode the meaning of the following snippet? Let's try this without context, to avoid cherry picking and introducing any bias.
  
     
• Next Oldest Next Newest