Near-monosyllabicity and Voynich: a Bavarian comparison
JoJo_Jost > 9 hours ago
The current discussion concerns Stolfi’s remarks about “phonetic Chinese” as a possible explanation for the Voynich Manuscript’s extreme syllable compression (the almost monosyllabic “feel” of the text).
While looking at the Herbal section from a purely structural angle (role-based segmentation rather than word readings), and later while thinking about f116 (the “pox liver” line), I had an idea I would like to put up for discussion. I am not presenting this as a theory, and I do not have the statistic background to assess it properly. It may well be nonsense. But it seems at least worth asking.
In spoken Bavarian (and related Upper German dialects), there is a well-known tendency toward strong reduction: unstressed vowels weaken, many endings are dropped or compressed, and meaning is often carried by consonants and position. This can create an impression of “near-monosyllabic” speech in practice, without tonality. The point is not that Bavarian is literally monosyllabic, but that it can become extremely syllable-light under rapid, informal speech.
A quick example (but see below too):
(Modern) Bavarian (spoken-like): I hob g’sagt, i kimm heit ned, weils z’spät worn is. (only monosyllabic words)
Standard German: Ich habe gesagt, ich komme heute nicht, weil es zu spät geworden ist.
English: I said I’m not coming today because it’s too late.
This led me to wonder whether some of the statistical/structural features that motivate “phonetic Chinese” comparisons could also be compatible with a Central European “phonetic compression mindset,” especially if a text is written in a speech-near way (and further compressed by a coding). In other words: do we really need to assume an East Asian phonological profile to get this kind of surface behavior, or could similar compression arise in a medieval Central European setting?
To be clear: I am not claiming “Voynich is Bavarian,” and I am not proposing any lexical readings.
To show the “compression” , I took a real Middle High German medical/recipe passage (Bamberger Arzneibuch) and rewrote some words of it in a speech-near, reduced form, the most words (except plant names) are now monosyllabic. Bavarian speakers will forgive inaccuracies; I can understand Bavarian, and I can adapt it the way I did, but I can't speak it perfectly myself. The point is simply to demonstrate how a Central European text can begin to look “token-short” and highly repetitive in a way that feels Voynich-like?
My question to the forum is therefore simple: is this comparison class linguistically meaningful?
Structure:
Line number
Bavarian Middle Ages in brief
German today
2v,16
nim driu bintl marrubii
nimm drei Bündel Andorn,
2v,17
und vlieht deſ beneboumes
und die Rinde des Benebaums,
2v,18
und dri mez win
und drei Maße des Weines,
2v,19
und siud ez in emo niw huan
und koche es in einem neuen Gefäß,
2v,20
vn laz ez kuln
und lass es abkühlen,
2v,21
un gib ez dem Siechn dri dag so er vast.
und gib es dem Kranken drei Tage lang nüchtern.
2v,22
[… Latein…] Nim die mittl rind der sale widn
nimm die mittlere Rinde der Salweide,
2v,23
ain hant vol
eine Handvoll,
2v,24
und siud si in nem niuen huan
und koche sie in einem neuen Gefäß,
2v,25
mit dem rain wine
mit reinem Wein,
2v,26
biz ze dem dritt deil (teil)
bis auf ein Drittel eingekocht,
2v,27
druck s uil guat uz
presse es sehr gut aus,
2v,28
und gib ez dri dag dem daz milz surit.
und gib es drei Tage dem, dessen Milz schmerzt.