• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Your "research"

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Your "research"
• Your "research"

• Your "research"

  Philipp Harland > 18-11-2025, 04:33 AM

  Have you personally done any Voynich "research" (say frequency analysis/letter entropy analysis for 2 examples, but it could be anything) of your own? If so, what kinds of results did you yield/reproduce? For me it's no, but I'm just curious.
  I don't know if there's already a thread about this, so let me know.

• RE: Your "research"

  rikforto > 18-11-2025, 09:15 AM

  I am working on what I'm terming "odd cases". There are some pretty good theories about what makes up a Voynich word, but some words are exceptional. The thing that got me interested in this was non-initial q. There so shockingly few of them that it seems like a rule that q must come first, but some 34 times, most of them unambiguous, the rule fails. I'm currently in a struggle with d, and I am trying to decide how to write up my findings.

• RE: Your "research"

  dashstofsk > 19-11-2025, 11:27 AM

  (18-11-2025, 04:33 AM)Philipp Harland Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Voynich "research" (say frequency analysis/letter entropy analysis for 2 examples, but it could be anything)

  
  
  People have been doing this sort of thing for a long time.
  
  Lists of of word frequencies, character frequencies, suffixes, prefixes, character pairs, word lengths, character and word positional frequencies, gallows occurrences, correlations between the languages clusters, character distributions across quire pages, distribution by illustration types and more have all been tabulated and analyzed, sometimes using deep computational algorithms. Comparison with almost every mediaeval language has also been tried.
  
  All of this analysis seems to have done nothing more than highlighted that there are many anomalies in the text, and has left everyone baffled.

• RE: Your "research"

  Koen G > 19-11-2025, 11:44 AM

  (19-11-2025, 11:27 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All of this analysis seems to have done nothing more than highlighted that there are many anomalies in the text, and has left everyone baffled.

  
  That is a bit of a problem sometimes. What we often see is that people dedicate a lot of effort to really dig into a type of analysis. But when they share the results, only a few others are able to follow up and spot any issues, and even fewer are able/willing to pull this all together with different research to reach a broader conclusion.
  
  Bowern and Lindemann did this for example in their You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which is often referred to and with good reason. It unites insights from various sources (see the extent of their literature) and tries to discern broader patterns in them. This kind of research is boring and relatively "altruistic", in the sense that rather than doing your own exciting research, you have to go through the work of others and synthesize it. 
  
  This is why keeping academics involved in Voynich research is essential: these papers help to construct and consolidate knowledge. These kinds of syntheses are what we need the most now, but they are usually less exciting and more difficult for amateurs to undertake.
• Next Oldest Next Newest