- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
- Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
-
Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
anyasophira > 02-09-2025, 03:22 AM
note: I am -struggling- with the formatting on the forum. I have attempted quite a few times to make this right without strange extra spaces and random inserted formatting tags. I have temporally given up and will attempt to figure this out later. But that does mean the text is presented very strangely.
Hello Everyone.
Has there been much discussion about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the implications of its very existence? Three words, one line, a single plant picture. And while we can’t identify the plant itself, it’s not a nebulous star lady or uncertain bathhouse that could also be interpreted as human organs. It’s a plant. Let’s assume that vords are not nonsense. Let’s also assume that they somehow give info if you know the rules behind them. If Voynich gives any information, then it might be useful to look at the smallest example of vords in a line because, as we know, the line seems to have it’s own functions, especially the first line of a paragraph. Now I looked to see if this had been discussed yet, but I could not find it on this forum. I suppose you will all let me know if all of this is a tired well discussed line of thinking.
My question, could You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. not be helpful in studying the line as a function?
Let’s begin with what is on the page.
f65r has a single plant, with 3 words written in a line next to a leaf on the bottom half. It may be called labeled, but it certainly has the format of a line. This plant either needed only one line, or this plant was never finished, and so we see how a line begins before finished.
Has it been discussed or looked at that If the manuscript gives information, then whatever mechanism or language being used was able to give information about a plant using only the glyphs on the page, with the frequency and order given? Has anyone ever considered what glyphs on f65r’s are used, and their frequency and order on the page?
Here are a few thing’s I have noticed by looking at this folio:
My method: I use the "Glen Claston" (GC) transliteration files which uses Keys and IVTT for my calculations. I extract numbers using that transliteration file and a python code then use an AI voynich bot using EVA to double check to make sure my numbers are at least in the ballpark of correct. ( Which is a good way to use AI btw, just to help take your data that you already have to help double check. I promise I never give AI real responsibility here, I know it lies) I also cross reference Voynichese online which uses Eva and use my eyeballs as well. ? I did not include Rosette. If I do not specify that I am using herbal section numbers then I am looking at all folios. When looking at ratios I just add up all keys on a folio and then see what the ratio of specific key is. When it’s a pair I do the same. I treat bench gallows as separate however I do specific here where they occur when relevant if you do not feel the same way. And luckily the glyphs I am looking at are pretty straight forward so I don’t have to get into whether c is ch etc.
The folio in question: f65r, the first folio after a large gap between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and several missing manuscript pages. Part of the herbal section Part of an elusive quire that has three hands and two languages. A quire that has two stars text pages, two herbal pages and one cosmos page.
On F65r. is a large plant and near the bottom on the left side reads:
Otaim, dam alam
Otaim is found 3 times (f111v f65r)
dam is found 97 times
alam is found 9 times (111r, 107r to name a few)
Both EVA and G.C do not disagree with these transliterations, so we have some somewhat agreed upon vords.
What was chosen, or encoded or needed, or used: So when writing a single Voynich sentence, for whatever rules, or reasons, there is one example where O, T, A, I, M, D would be needed but the rest of the glyphs would not.
A single line of text that gives further information about a single plant needed these glyphs but not others and only needed 3 words, and 12 glyphs
What is there and what is not there: I have seen it argued that before we crack the code we must define what a glyph/letter actually is, and what a word actually is. However these glyphs on the page are not as debated about as much, at least to what I have found in my research. There is no N so we don’t have to argue about whether i and n is the same glyph or separate glyphs.
A can be debated sometimes as O, but if you look at these A’s they are nice examples, where they connect pretty well. There are no bench gallows, or benches like sh or ch. Or even s which sometimes gets debated as r like. There is no y, which sometimes is debated as unnecessary, or perhaps a type of A or maybe filler. There is however M, who stands at the end, an single i which is very unusual though not unheard of, and what is nice about M is it is very distinct from I, with a closure. There is one single gallows- t so we don’t have to worry about the debate P might be K. We don’t have to also debate whether ee is ch or e is c so that is also nice. Also, does this page somewhat give us some inherent information about the nature of M? This might be evidence that it’s an abbreviation or a placeholder for other glyphs. I would argue that it eliminates it’s use as random padding since there is clearly enough room on the page to not need it ( unless the text is meaningless). However…maybe this is evidence it -is- a null which is why it is necessary even in a three letter line to disguise even smaller chunks. I don’t know cyphers enough to decide which point these land on.
Before we look at Indvidual Glyphs lets look at a few things of note with clusters.
im: according to my scan there are 52 instances of im in the entire manuscript ALL also begin with a to make aim. Aim can exist embedded and also on its’s own. It’s very fond of daim and more often than not has that d there as well. I have not checked every single one of these to make sure the “a” is a proper one yet.
iim: Just to be diligent I explored iim as well. There are 17. All but one must have A to make aiim. My strange outlier is f113r. the word is oriim. What a weirdo. So that means Ais not always required for this cluster. I checked this one visually and this is a very separate fat little o that is definitely not an “a”. Also aiim exists as its own word on f87v.
iiim: Somehow does exist, just once, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the word loiiim. No A needed here, just an o. I checked the actual page and it does -seem- to be an o instead of a but this one is less clear.
Single i in the im family is more frequent than double ii making it a reverse pattern to in and iiin.. Numbers are very small here though.
The glyphs themselves.
Their frequency/ratios:
When looking at these three words, I find it useful to look at their ratio of presence to the total number of glyphs given on a folio page. I like to compare these against other folio pages and how they behave, rather than if everything was normalized to be equal chance. Sometimes I look at the whole manuscript, and other times I focus just on herbal pages.
When doing this A and M are the most noteworthy presence.
Eva M-
Why M and not N and why im and not in or iin?
M is favoring rightness, though more on a vord basis than line basis. M is favoring ending vords. M ended the line. So we see M following those “ line as a function trends”. But we see M here and not N or Y. And we see M dominating the page at a 25% ratio.
M occurs at least a few times a page, but its ratios are very very small. Most of the time it sits around 0-2% of any section. Perhaps it’s inflated because of how little the text is. So we look at the next ratio of high M. The highest ratio of M after You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is F3r, an herbal page has 456 keys, so a goodly amount, and it’s ratio is 24 making this 5.26%. That’s quite a difference. Third highest folio with a ratio of M -F3v has 295 total glyphs and 31 M’s. Not bad! It’s a lot less overall glyphs so perhaps M stands out when there are less glyphs. Nope- it’s a bit less at 4.07%. Let’s look at 4th and 5th highest- f24r, 350/40 M’s 11.43% and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 266/24 which is 9%. These folios with the top highest ratios of M in the entire manuscript, ( including f65r). Notice that with four of these folios, less glyphs on a folio usually mean slightly less ratios of M. Well this is not a trend found in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with it’s scant glyphs and M ratio at extreme heights. Would love to eventually check n pattern and see how they relate to M here.
Eva A-
The Eva A glyph will go up and down in ratios across different folios. For example on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. it is at a 11.36%, while on many of the bath pages it likes to be around 5.8- 7.8 %, and on some pages it is also lower at even 4.28%. The top highest ratios it has is f67v2 263/52 19.77 %, f72r2 452/81 17.92% and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 1577/274 17.37%. These are folios with a lot of glyphs. I looked at a few that have smaller sample size, and I noticed that like with M, with -more- glyphs the % of A goes up and with less it tends to go down, although this is a quick glance at the rates, and would need to be checked. So A being so numerous even with smaller numbers is counter to what it normally likes to do. For example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with 177 glyphs has 22 a with 12.43%.
And You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also has of course the highest ratios of A of an other folio.
F65r has 4 A’s, with a rate of 33.3%. The next folio with the highest ratio of A only has 19.77 % with 263 glyphs.
Again, we do need to ask that if we have so little data, does this mean that A and M are acting strangely because of how small the glyphs are? But then they are acting opposite of their usual tendency. And they are also behaving different while other glyphs are not ( see below). And wouldn’t their inflation -be- the curious thing here. Again given only a few letters to use, a and m were pulled in greater number rather than o or y or n.
Eva-i
So in this case, I is not a compound. But it’s tricky. So let’s just measure it as it is found- A single i without another I or n following it. This is rare with it’s rates often 0% on most folios. But it is found. Obviously You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the highest at 8.33%. When looking at the entire manuscript not just herbal section we have folios with 1.52, 1.22, .99, .76 and it just goes smaller. Unlike M and A there is not trend at all of higher or lower amounts of glyphs effecting ratios of single i- it’s all over the place.
f65r- The glyphs that are not acting out:
Eva-o
The ratio of o is 8.33% , a little low to other herbal pages, but it matches the ratio on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. at 8.37%, so on typical herbal pages it can be that low. Now on herbal pages, o is more likely to be in the 10% range, and 41r has one of the lowest o ratios in the herbal, but still it can and does exist elsewhere to have these ratios. So we do NOT see a giant inflation of o because we only have three words, we just see it sitting in it’s usually ratios.
Eva-d
The ratio of eva d is 8.33% . I randomly looked at a few herbal pages and d goes up and down based on the folio.
For example f 33v has 8.9 %, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has 11.90% and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. only 5.24%. So d numbers move up and down a lot more than o does. So d isn’t even low or high or inflated! Its just acting like all the other ratios of D on the herbal pages.
Gallows Eva T
Let’s look at Eva T with ratios regarding it’s place on top line ( first line in a paragraph). I honestly forgot to go back and look at T ratios per folios, so that can be a further research idea.
If we count the single line on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as top line, then it’s ratios of Eva T does not really stand out with ratios at 8.33%. .
On the top rows in the herbal folios, Eva T can be found in different types of ratios, from 0% to 11% 13v ( biggest top line ratio in the herbal) to a mid range of 4.87% (f5v).
So one single T on Folio 65r falls in the middle of the ratios that T can be found in top line.
The ratio is ordinary of how many T's we expect to find in a top line.
However having a vord with T or OT start the first line is a bit more unusual.
Here are all examples found in the manuscript.
See below for all examples In the entire manuscript.
8r, tydio
15r, tshor
18v, told
44v. tsho
65r otaim
80r toroly,
82v otechdy,
84v tody,
88f otorchety,
96r tor
I did not include bench gallows T- there are a few stretched out strange ones that do begin top line. If they are included they still align with all of this.
Is it strange that P F and K are not around in f65r? Is it strange that only one type of gallows is there?
As I look at those three words, it does strike me that when given only a little bit of glyphs to use, the scribe or creator or their encoding method resulted in T instead of P. Remember P dominates top line, and especially dominates the first Vord of the top line. OT and T do not usually start that top line.
But You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is also unusual in that it is a top line that only has one type of gallows.
So...Is that a different type of top line?
Looking at all herbal pages top lines we have 121. Then I looked for any that only had one type of Gallows, P, K , T or F and considered their ratio to total top lines in the herbal section.
( Not considering bench gallows).
Results
The follow folios have a top line with only one type of gallows. the trend stands regardless if you consider bench gallows, but I decided to include bench gallows data just to be transparent.
Eva T – 5 folios- 4.96%, (Including f65r).
Eva P – 3-4 folios- 2.4 % to 3.3% see below
Eva K- 1 folio- 0.8%
Eva F- o folio- 0.% may need to double check this.
All other folios are mixed in some way at 89.3%
So while we think of P as dominating top row, when a single gallows is allowed, suddenly T is the top contender to be that gallows, at least in the herbal section. Also, does this somehow lead to the function of T being in labels a lot? Labels -can- have more than one gallows, but maybe more often they are much likelier to be a single type gallows situation than a paragraph lines, so thus they favor T over P? ,
Herbal Pages with a single Gallow on the top line.
Only t (no p, f, k) – 7 folios
Note: All of these lines begin with either T or OT and if we include T bench gallows one begins with CTH- f9 starts with a T vord. r There are 2 bench gallows as well, but if you consider them the same as T, they are both T bench gallows. If bench gallows are not considered ( and they were not for any other gallows) then it’s still singular type of T gallows. If they are considered, it’s interested that they match the T completely
- f15r – Starts with a T vord. 3 t gallows here.
- f18v- starts with a T vord. 4 t gallows here
- f35r- A tricky one. It has the loooonng T bench gallow to start. However there is also a single T later in the line.
- f44v-starts with T- vord. 6 t’s here and only t bench gallows.
- f65r- starts with OT vord. 1 t
Top line with Only p (no t, f, k) – 4 folios
Note: All of these lines begin with P. We have Pch twice and Po and psh. All but You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has more than one P, with the last two having OP as well.- f14r- 2 P’s
- f17v- in question, EVA says its 3 P’s and IVTT says it’s 2 P’s and 1 F.
- f24r-2 P’s
- f96v- either 3 P’s and 1 f bench ( which we might consider another disqualifying situation, since it doesn’t match, and only furthers T’s dominance) or 2 P’s, 1 P with what looks like the beginning of a bench on the left that never actualized and 1 F bench gallows.
Top line Only k – 1 folio
Take your pick, either bench gallows do not count, and so there are only 4 folios. They do count but only if they match the type of singular gallows, in which case we still eliminate 1-2 folios once again boosting T as most likely to be top row with only one type of gallows.- f41v
Only f – 1 folio
None.
F65v if considered a top line, is in a small little sub class- one with only one type of gallows included.
So what does this say?
So we classify a somewhat rare type of top line, that which only has one type of gallows. And in that we only have a few samples at -most- 10. So that makes You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. a part of a very small group of top rows that go against the norm
Then we need to look at if we allow for bench gallows, or only those who match.
But the trend remains no matter what.
Let’s just eliminate those folios whose singular gallows type has any type of bench gallows and be really conservative.
We then have top lines with only type of Gallows in it:
Gallows T- 3
Gallows P- 2
Gallows K- 1
Gallows F- still not here.
T still leads, and by a greater margin than P. There are at least 3 examples of T existing on a top line without any other gallows including bench gallows while P only has 2. So, T can be used in a top line if other gallows are not used, or needed or wanted or whatever is happening behind the reasons the the Voynich script acts the way it does. So while P is line initial, and line ratio dominate, it is so when other types of gallows are also there.
What does this all mean? I have no idea lol. But I do know that at least now there is some reason that if you had to pick only one type of Gallows in those three vords, the trend was to choose T over any other gallows.
So f65r, with it’s single line and three vords is doing the following:- Increasing it’s M and it’s A by an incredible rate against the usual trend of decreasing with less glyphs
- It is using single i but not using N.
- It is using O, T, and D at normal ratios.
- It is not using Q or S or R or Y or Ch or Sh or any other common glyphs. This is against the ratios usually found.
Does this indicate something? Is this evidence that these are not necessary to encode, encrypt, or relay -some- information, no matter how minimum?
- Also, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is one of only 2 folios without a Q ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also doesn’t have Q).
- [font=Times New Roman] [/font]Lack of Hapax. It goes against the increased use of hapax words at greater rates in the top line. When looking at the trends of other folios, it is very unusual that every single one of these vords is not a hapax. The top row of herbals has a huge ratio of those, and labels do too. Otaim is found 3 times (f111v f65r) dam is found 97 times and alam is found 9 times (111r, 107r to name a few).
- [font=Times New Roman] [/font][font=Times New Roman] [/font]It goes against the bigram structure: It does not favor vords in groups of bigrams, as two of the words have odd numbered glyphs. But it has 12 glyphs total, and therefore could have been in even number glyphs. Some possible explanations:
- The Encryption process with fewer vords trended towards odd vords for some reason.
- The information being given lends it’self more to more A and M and odd numbered vords.
- The mechanism which makes the first vord longer than the second vord in a line had more weight than the mechanism that creates even numbered vords.
F65r also follows a lot of trends and features of Voynich top lines, and glyph ratios
Below might indicate how important or integral these behaviors are to the encoding of the manuscript. Because despite having only 3 vords, these features were either important enough, or dominant enough to still exist as if there were paragraphs of text.
- There is a gallows in the first vord. And it doesn’t go against the norm when using T both as when given only type of Gallows, and also when given how often T is used on top line. Having a gallows on top line in the first vord is pretty integral to how Voynich seems to function.
- General Vord Length: It follows the trend of gallows words being longer ( otaim has the most glyphs on the page
- First vord versus second vord length: as stated above, the first vord is the longest vord on the folio and it is followed by the shortest.
- Ratios of O, D and T: Are not strange by folio in the herbal pages. So how hardwired are these 3 glyphs in the workings of how this script works that even in this tiny sample of Voynichese, they are trending as if they were in a paragraph of text.
- General order of where certain glyphs like to be placed in vords and lines: The gallows in first vord and leftward. The a, and I and m are in their usual spots when they do appear, as a cluster at the end. Initial O is normal. Initial A is less likely but breaks no major trends or patterns.
- Repetitive nature I mean we have three words that end in -aim then -am and finally -am. We see that even in minimum, and even when we have an unusual amount of A and M, voynichese is being repetitive to the vords around it. What does that say about its nature? Are there lots of A and M because it must repeat, and so it is using what it has on the page? Or is the information being used heavy on the use of using A and M to relay it, and therefore the words will look similar? If this is true, does the first word on the folio or line or paragraph set the stage for the line? Or is A and M always doing this and we can’t tell when other glyphs exist on the page hiding their statistics? How can we test for this? ( The last one is less likely I feel). Does this page help eliminate the idea of a natural unknown language, considering that the pattern of repetition is holding true even with three words, even when using uncommon bigrams and/or glyphs. Like what language does this? This seems very purposely whether meaningless or not.
A few more questions I have regarding research:
- Could this page look this way using a cypher like the Naibbe cypher? Is this like the labels where that falls apart, or does this hold up act more like a line in that regards.
- Does this line speak to Patrick Feaster’s work with loops, or rightness/leftness?
- How does this work with any of the slot theories, or core and mantle theories?
- Does this line have other implications that I have not see?
When looking at f65r, it appears to me that regardless of language, or encryption process or if this page is making a note about the plant, or something completely off topic, we have a single line with 3 vords that would be considered suitable information for the creators for that given page, and we still end up with an initial vord that is larger, the second word that is shorter, the T is at the front and the m is at the end, after a or i. D also starts a vord, which is interesting seeing how one of the most common vords in the text has DA starting it. Unlike most pages, there is not a lot needed such as more vords or lines, or q or y or r or s. It also does not necessitate P or F or K. The folio also doesn’t use any daiin or aiin variant. The 3 vords are not hapax, however the first vord -is- uncommon and found only 3 other time so perhaps the chances a vord becomes hapax increases with glyph count. Something to explore later perhaps.
There is a really good argument against the idea that the folio was meant to be longer, and that is how the M’s are doing such a good job of ending everything. It would be MORE unusual for a Muli lined paragraph to begin with three words that start with M. In fact this would be against the trends MUCH more than this three-letter line that for the most part follows line trends.
And finally, I have indeed asked myself " What makes this plant so obvious that it only needs those 3 vords."
Some crackpot theories:
With the gap of lost pages, perhaps a few other herbal would have matched this style of page if we had them.
Or maybe this is just that that obvious of a plant. Like "duh, this one is outside your window, you use it daily, not much really needed to mention".
Or even wilder, hey here is a plant that isn't a composite, unlike the rest of all those -other- plants, so its pretty straight forward and doesn't need numerous plant info. Ok I know thats a reach.
I know this isn't Hand 1 or Hand 2- can't recall which Hand it is, but I know its a rarer one for herbal page, so maybe this is more a function of Scribe style. But by that I mean using only 3 vords. My art speaks for itself perhaps?
And this is where I leave this thread with these final thoughts and observations.
Also, I suppose I should make a quick intro since this is my first real post. This is my first time having the nerve to speak up in my own post so I thought I could state a little bit about myself. I am a 40 something elementary school teacher who got the Voynich fever around February 2025. I knew nothing. So I leaped into it and absolutely attempted to see how Ai could be used. It could not. No matter, I continued fourth. Slowly I gained enough knowledge to be able to read EVA and IVTT Keys which further allowed me to understand the research better. I got better at knowing the layout of the manuscript and what the real problems and limitations are of this script. I slowly began to understand , at least a bit, what the heck entropy is. And swallow tailed melons. I read discussions and listened to the videos. I am terrible at math and I can’t code, but I did figure out what a transliteration file was and slowly read Rene’s site, though it was dense and hard for a newbie, and also somehow slowly got through Stolfi and Emma, and Tavi and Koen and Mark, and Peter, and Lisa. Torsten was harder, along with heavy slot scientists. I read theories that were not correct to get a sense of what makes a bad theory. Those are useful. I still don’t understand how historical cyphers work, but I do know to stay away from anything relying on simple substitution. I wish I could read Latin or understand how topic modeling or Markov models work. And to be honest and humble, I don’t know what I could possibly bring to the table outside of these small little observations. I just can’t quit, because I see those Glyphs on the page, and they are so pleasing to the eye, and they feel like they -should- say something and it drives me crazy that they don’t.
Anyways, not sure how to end this.
I would love to here more data or thoughts or additional questions from this folio.
Thanks,
A. - f9 starts with a T vord. r There are 2 bench gallows as well, but if you consider them the same as T, they are both T bench gallows. If bench gallows are not considered ( and they were not for any other gallows) then it’s still singular type of T gallows. If they are considered, it’s interested that they match the T completely
-
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
Ruby Novacna > 02-09-2025, 05:08 AM
Maybe hapax, not haplax? (ἅπαξ, Adv. once, once only, once for all) -
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
nablator > 02-09-2025, 09:37 AM
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am -struggling- with the formatting on the forum.
The rich text editor has several annoying bugs: it inserts empty lines and messes your formatting after you preview or post, attempting to fix your errors, like missing closing brackets, only making them worse.
Try the last button (View source) on the icon bar: it will let you edit your post as text, including all the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. markup.
Quote:A few more questions I have regarding research:
Could this page look this way using a cypher like the Naibbe cypher? Is this like the labels where that falls apart, or does this hold up act more like a line in that regards.
Does this line speak to Patrick Feaster’s work with loops, or rightness/leftness?
How does this work with any of the slot theories, or core and mantle theories?
Does this line have other implications that I have not see?
Any small sample may challenge some aspect of statistically valid observations and theories without this being particularly significant. -
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
oshfdk > 02-09-2025, 11:13 AM
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A few more questions I have regarding research:
- Could this page look this way using a cypher like the Naibbe cypher? Is this like the labels where that falls apart, or does this hold up act more like a line in that regards.
- Does this line speak to Patrick Feaster’s work with loops, or rightness/leftness?
- How does this work with any of the slot theories, or core and mantle theories?
- Does this line have other implications that I have not see?
I'm not sure I see why this folio wouldn't work with the Naibbe, CLS, slot theories, etc. It looks to me like more or less normal Voynichese with excessive use of m's. If we assume that m is an abbreviation (whether plaintext or ciphertext, doesn't matter), maybe the author felt the need to make this inscription short. Given that this page is near a few full-text folios with no images, maybe it just says "see prev. folio", "as descr. in the text", "ref. to sect. A on the left" or anything similar.
Also, I won't say that the Naibbe falls apart for the labels. I think if most labels are 1-2 letters long (so, they are indices and not words), the Naibbe would work just fine for them. The Naibbe doesn't really explain LAAFU, the use of custom script, and personally for me the Naibbe is way too verbose to consider, but otherwise it would work fine to mimic Voynichese, I think. - Could this page look this way using a cypher like the Naibbe cypher? Is this like the labels where that falls apart, or does this hold up act more like a line in that regards.
-
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
Jorge_Stolfi > 03-09-2025, 04:39 AM
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am -struggling- with the formatting on the forum.
Welcome to the club. Sorry to say, but this "MyBB" is absolutely the worst forum software I have ever used since I first met the Internet in 1979. Even the "Neolithic" Usenet News system which I used in the 1980s was must better.
Among many, many bugs, why on earth did MyBB decide to redefine the editor window code? The "new and improved" editor has tons of bugs, including your formatting woes and much worse. I had just typed half a page reply to your post, but deleted one line by mistake, typed CTRL-Z to recover it -- and instead the editor erased the whole message, and then CTRL-Z would not bring it back. It says "Auto-Saved" every 10 keystrokes, but does not give me a way to recover the last auto-saved text, and anyway that would be the blank page...
When I was soapboxing against cryptos, I used bitcointalk.org, a forum that had been set up by Satoshi Nakamoto himself in 2009. Its appearance and features were so much like those of this forum that its software (SimpleMachines) must have been a clone of this MyBB's, or vive-versa, or both are clones of something else. They differ in many details, but almost every difference is an annoying bug of MyBB.
But back too your message, typying it all over again:
Quote:[otaim dam alam] may be called [a label], but it certainly has the format of a line.
Why do you say so? Multi-word labels are rare on plants, but this would not be unique. For instance:- on f88r, third row of plants, there are two labels otor am and ofysky dal
- on f88v, top row of plants, there is otar arody
- on f89r1, second row of plants, Chol Ches and okaiin dan
- on f89r2_f89r3, second row of plants, okol Chol dy
- on same page, third row of plants, okShd Chos
- on f89v3+f89v2, second row of plants, otair Chody and dykair an
- on f89v1, bottom row of plants, koeear ain, otor Shos, opol olaiin,
Plant names with two or more words are common and are a normal feature of herbals in other languages. E. g. in Culpeper's Herbal we see "sweet bazil", "French beans", "ladies bedstraw", "birds foot", etc.
But perhaps by "format of a line" you meant that it is a multi-word phrase. Indeed, such multi-word labels should give us clues about the grammar of Voynichese, including on what is a "word". For instance, on page f89v1, the very next label after opol olaiin (clearly two words) is opaldaiin (one word) or op aldaiin (two words but split in a different place)...
All the best, --jorge - on f88r, third row of plants, there are two labels otor am and ofysky dal
-
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
Jorge_Stolfi > 03-09-2025, 12:08 PM
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. What makes this plant so obvious that it only needs those 3 words.
It is a mistake to assume that the VMS is "perfect", like a copy of the Quran or a Torah scroll -- with every letter and stroke precisely as it should be. Any research that makes that assumption will get hopelessly snagged at every little inconsistency.
To me it is obvious that the text we see today is the result of many steps, before and after the initial writing on the parchment, that were either unintended or executed with varying amounts of care and skill -- and thus introduced an unknown amount of errors. From spelling mistakes to skipping, transposing, or mangling entire paragraphs (like the two halves of f34r parag 1).
The multi-language texts I have been using for comparative statistical analysis were all written by literate authors and revised by printers, and thus are essentially free of errors. (And I even corrected a few that had managed to sneak through. I collected my Certificate of Extreme Asperger after I corrected some errors in the Quran. In Arabic. Even without knowing a hummus serving of the language.
)
However, I recently got hold of the diary of the Lewis and Clark Expedition that explored the Western US around 1800. It is a very important historical manuscript -- by mostly by two authors, with a couple entries by others. It is in modern English, not encrypted. But it was written by brave Soldiers, not scholars; and thus it has about one spelling error or idiosyncratic abbreviation every line, or thereabouts. Especially when the authors try to render phrases and names in French, Spanish, and the languages of many dozens of Native tribes that they interacted with along the way. And the errors are not consistent, of course: the word "buffalo" is spelled in at least four or five different ways. Even in the same paragraph...
The point is that we must always keep in mind the possibility that the Voynich manuscript has as many errors and inconsistent spellings as the Lewis and Clark one, or even more.
All the best, --jorge -
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
pfeaster > 03-09-2025, 12:27 PM
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, I suppose I should make a quick intro since this is my first real post. This is my first time having the nerve to speak up in my own post
Thanks for taking the plunge! These are interesting observations.
I'd add that the sequence on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. bears some resemblance to a peculiar structure of unusually common label "vords" that begin with [ot] or [ok] and have an [l] near or at the end: [otaly], [okal], [okaly], [okol], [otol], [otoly], [okaldy], [otaldy], [otoldy]. Those are some of the highest-frequency label vords that aren't particularly high-frequency vords in running text.
I've long suspected that these forms result when the same factors responsible for line patterning get applied to shorter snippets of text. What those factors are is, of course, another question! But maybe we're seeing something similar (and only slightly less extreme) on f65r.
Short lines at the ends of paragraphs could provide further material for comparison in the same spirit, although they're not quite as obviously self-standing as the text on f65r. -
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
anyasophira > 04-09-2025, 02:05 AM
(03-09-2025, 12:27 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, I suppose I should make a quick intro since this is my first real post. This is my first time having the nerve to speak up in my own post
Thanks for taking the plunge! These are interesting observations.
I'd add that the sequence on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. bears some resemblance to a peculiar structure of unusually common label "vords" that begin with [ot] or [ok] and have an [l] near or at the end: [otaly], [okal], [okaly], [okol], [otol], [otoly], [okaldy], [otaldy], [otoldy]. Those are some of the highest-frequency label vords that aren't particularly high-frequency vords in running text.
I've long suspected that these forms result when the same factors responsible for line patterning get applied to shorter snippets of text. What those factors are is, of course, another question! But maybe we're seeing something similar (and only slightly less extreme) on f65r.
Short lines at the ends of paragraphs could provide further material for comparison in the same spirit, although they're not quite as obviously self-standing as the text on f65r.
Thank you! I’m a huge fan of your work and I feel very honored you even glanced at this. would looking at those short lines at ends of paragraphs be a productive way to move forward ? How many words do you suppose might be a good start- 3 or 4? Maybe just begin by looking at how they trend and move. See if they behave any different than other lines or initial lines? Thank you again for your response. -
RE: Looking at f65r in regards to the line as a functional unit.
anyasophira > 04-09-2025, 02:20 AM
(03-09-2025, 12:08 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(02-09-2025, 03:22 AM)anyasophira Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. What makes this plant so obvious that it only needs those 3 words.
It is a mistake to assume that the VMS is "perfect", like a copy of the Quran or a Torah scroll -- with every letter and stroke precisely as it should be. Any research that makes that assumption will get hopelessly snagged at every little inconsistency.
To me it is obvious that the text we see today is the result of many steps, before and after the initial writing on the parchment, that were either unintended or executed with varying amounts of care and skill -- and thus introduced an unknown amount of errors. From spelling mistakes to skipping, transposing, or mangling entire paragraphs (like the two halves of f34r parag 1).
The multi-language texts I have been using for comparative statistical analysis were all written by literate authors and revised by printers, and thus are essentially free of errors. (And I even corrected a few that had managed to sneak through. I collected my Certificate of Extreme Asperger after I corrected some errors in the Quran. In Arabic. Even without knowing a hummus serving of the language.)
However, I recently got hold of the diary of the Lewis and Clark Expedition that explored the Western US around 1800. It is a very important historical manuscript -- by mostly by two authors, with a couple entries by others. It is in modern English, not encrypted. But it was written by brave Soldiers, not scholars; and thus it has about one spelling error or idiosyncratic abbreviation every line, or thereabouts. Especially when the authors try to render phrases and names in French, Spanish, and the languages of many dozens of Native tribes that they interacted with along the way. And the errors are not consistent, of course: the word "buffalo" is spelled in at least four or five different ways. Even in the same paragraph...
The point is that we must always keep in mind the possibility that the Voynich manuscript has as many errors and inconsistent spellings as the Lewis and Clark one, or even more.
All the best, --jorge
Thank you for taking the time to respond Jorge. I was so honored you even glanced at this ( so many amazing researchers on this forum!). That is a very good point. I am curious since I have limited exposure to historical ciphers or script meant to be encoded- when those were decoded did they also show a lot of natural errors made by the scribes? Meaning the solution is known and the text clearly has a misprint and therefore is translated into an error? I did try to think about large trends found from data and studies on the manuscript when looking at these three vords. So what makes them unique could just be a typical error- they were meant to have an o or an n instead of m. It is still interesting to me what makes them “not unique” to other initial lines in the text. You have studied the script so much you probably know how it acts intuitively at this point- do you feel that there is a difference in how labels behave to lines? or iare the patterns very similar with both of these types?