• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Voynich through Phonetic Irish

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • Voynich through Phonetic Irish
• Voynich through Phonetic Irish

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Ruby Novacna > 15-11-2025, 04:37 PM

  (15-11-2025, 02:11 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can write in EVA/Me/Translation format like Ruby suggested if that's easier and include Voynich characters and phonemic notation (in my own writing or screenshots though since I don't have the font/keyboard installed for either.)

  
  You can find the transcription files on Rene's website:
   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
  
  P.S. In my opinion, you don't have an urgent need to use the Voynich font.

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 04:44 PM

  diy 
  do 
  
  
  dean or do for "good for", I wasn't really sure of what it would be in this context, "maith" isn't really used. 

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  oshfdk > 15-11-2025, 04:50 PM

  These words don't seem to appear in the manuscript. Which words does the manuscript use for "good" and "small"?

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  rikforto > 15-11-2025, 04:52 PM

  fobhán doic bréidín feadán réadán abhouil rian feadán doic ológ
  
  I have specific questions about this. Some of this is my unfamiliarity with Irish, so please bear with me, but I do have some linguistics training and some familiarity with other Indo-European languages besides English.
  
  Starting with the word choices:
  

  1. Where did you get "under thatch" from for fobhán. The dictionary entries I see only give "whitish".
     
  2. Why is doic glossed as "basin"? Focloir (and only Focloir) says it is equivalent to duga, but gives the primary reading as meaning "impediment"
     
  3. Where did abhouil come from? it is not in any of the three dictionaries on Teanglann. Is it bi, based on your notes?
     

  
  Before looking at the syntax, I'd like to offer a quick grammatical labeling. Aside from subs=substantive (a type of being verb), I think this is transparent, but I can explain if needed:
  fobhán     doic     bréidín feadán  réadán bi?     rian     feadán  doic    ológ
  adj-masc  n-fem  n-masc n-masc n-masc subs? n-masc n-masc n-fem n-fem
  
  My questions on syntax are:
  
  

  1. What is fobhán (whitened) supposed to be modifying? Why does it not agree in gender with doic? (Or, if it really is "thatch" (n-masc), why the long string of unrelated nouns?)
     
  2. Given that I am to understand that Irish uses the order noun-adjective, why does this start with an adjective. (Again, immediately resolved with the "thatch" reading, but the question of the string of nouns again asserts itself.)
     
  3. Where are the words "under" coming from in your gloss? (I may simply not understand the Irish, but neither the dictionary entry for the associated words nor for "under" makes that clear to me.)
     
  4. How do you interpret the two long strings of nouns? (Not what is your interpretation, which I have in your gloss, but by what process do you interpret them? Is this typical in Irish?)
     
  5. What are the subject and predicate of abhouil/bi ?
     
  6. Why is abhouil/bi substantive rather than copular? (That is, bi versus is?)
     
  7. Where is the "from" coming from in your gloss of ológ?
     

  
  Again, I expect some of these questions have answers that would be more apparent to me if I were more familiar with Irish and I appreciate your answers. However, the long strings of nouns in dictionary form, the lack of verbs and function words, and the presence of the substantive all strike me as odd for a European language.

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 04:55 PM

  (15-11-2025, 04:50 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These words don't seem to appear in the manuscript. Which words does the manuscript use for "good" and "small"?

  
  
  small is a suffix (og or dhin)
  
  
  or
  dy 
  

  ---

  in some cases, good could be 
  
  do
  da

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 05:27 PM

  (15-11-2025, 04:52 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.fobhán doic bréidín feadán réadán abhouil rian feadán doic ológ
  
  I have specific questions about this. Some of this is my unfamiliarity with Irish, so please bear with me, but I do have some linguistics training and some familiarity with other Indo-European languages besides English.
  
  Starting with the word choices:
  

  1. Where did you get "under thatch" from for fobhán. The dictionary entries I see only give "whitish".
     
  2. Why is doic glossed as "basin"? Focloir (and only Focloir) says it is equivalent to duga, but gives the primary reading as meaning "impediment"
     
  3. Where did abhouil come from? it is not in any of the three dictionaries on Teanglann. Is it bi, based on your notes?
     

  
  Before looking at the syntax, I'd like to offer a quick grammatical labeling. Aside from subs=substantive (a type of being verb), I think this is transparent, but I can explain if needed:
  fobhán     doic     bréidín feadán  réadán bi?     rian     feadán  doic    ológ
  adj-masc  n-fem  n-masc n-masc n-masc subs? n-masc n-masc n-fem n-fem
  
  My questions on syntax are:
  
  

  1. What is fobhán (whitened) supposed to be modifying? Why does it not agree in gender with doic? (Or, if it really is "thatch" (n-masc), why the long string of unrelated nouns?)
     
  2. Given that I am to understand that Irish uses the order noun-adjective, why does this start with an adjective. (Again, immediately resolved with the "thatch" reading, but the question of the string of nouns again asserts itself.)
     
  3. Where are the words "under" coming from in your gloss? (I may simply not understand the Irish, but neither the dictionary entry for the associated words nor for "under" makes that clear to me.)
     
  4. How do you interpret the two long strings of nouns? (Not what is your interpretation, which I have in your gloss, but by what process do you interpret them? Is this typical in Irish?)
     
  5. What are the subject and predicate of abhouil/bi ?
     
  6. Why is abhouil/bi substantive rather than copular? (That is, bi versus is?)
     
  7. Where is the "from" coming from in your gloss of ológ?
     

  
  Again, I expect some of these questions have answers that would be more apparent to me if I were more familiar with Irish and I appreciate your answers. However, the long strings of nouns in dictionary form, the lack of verbs and function words, and the presence of the substantive all strike me as odd for a European language.

  
  
  1. I do not have an adjective there. I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word. Fo BHAIN 
  I didn't include a word here that was a possibility (not phonetic though. words for qo are fo-, fa, fo or fia-, fo- meaning under and fia- meaning wild). The line under Under Thatch as a possibility is: 
  fia-bhán, m. (gs. -áin, pl. ~ta). Untilled lea.
  
  Correct 
  abhouil - bi
  
  3. (Of condition, position)(a) (With adjective)
    Be. 1. Exist.
  
  7. From for Olog is the ending/suffix: 
  
  afada

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 05:39 PM

  2. Both have been spelled and/or pronounced the same historically: 
  
  doic1, f. (gs. ~e). 1. Difficulty, impediment. ~ a chur i rud, to impede sth. ~ i gcaint, i bpósadh, an impediment in speech, to marriage. 2. Hesitation, reluctance. Gan ~, unhesitatingly. (Var: ~e f)
  
  duga, m. (gs. ~, pl. ~í). 1. Dock (for ships). ~ grábhála, snámha, tirim, graving, floating, dry, dock. ~í, docks, dockyard. 2. (Of canal) Basin. (Var: dug m; pl. ~nna)
  

  ---

  5 and 6 I'm not sure, I have to revisit my language arts notebook from 5th grade. lol

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 05:45 PM

  (15-11-2025, 10:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While I am not really following this discussion in detail, I wonder about the two handwritten pieces in the Voynich script, in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
  
  This is rather unusual Voynichese. I could not identify any point in the text that has these sequences, but such a search is not trivial.
  Could you indicate where these words are found?

  
  Tea (or Resin rather) is mentioned on 54r,

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  Doireannjane > 15-11-2025, 05:51 PM

  (15-11-2025, 05:45 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (15-11-2025, 10:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While I am not really following this discussion in detail, I wonder about the two handwritten pieces in the Voynich script, in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
  
  This is rather unusual Voynichese. I could not identify any point in the text that has these sequences, but such a search is not trivial.
  Could you indicate where these words are found?

  
  Tea (or Resin rather) is mentioned on 54r,

  
  I've finished translating this to 
  Resin water bragget wash serves occasional  rough cloth (or skin?) _?__ redivide, refill woodbine(honeysuckle)
  
  thin layer/light drizzle nipple second little strong(?) on/and slightly elevate it /not young or long time/ that it pierced tight

• RE: Voynich through Phonetic Irish

  LisaFaginDavis > 15-11-2025, 06:00 PM

  Doireann, this last post is a great example of what others (and myself) have found problematic about your methods. You wrote "I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word." You are making a choice about how to interpret the word based on what you think it should mean. That is by definition "cherry-picking". it is not reproduceable by anyone other than yourself, making it impossible for anyone else to repeat your work and come to the same conclusions. No one else would look at that sentence and decide to "break up the word." Instead of posting examples of sentences you've interpreted, you need to go back to first principles and explain, simply and concisely, your association of sounds to symbols and your justification for those associations, in ways other than trial and error or selective confirmation bias. 
  
  Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean. 
  
  Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again. 
  
  Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.
• Next Oldest Next Newest