• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Specialized shorthand and not a language

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • Specialized shorthand and not a language
• Specialized shorthand and not a language

• Specialized shorthand and not a language

  DerrickMay > 02-01-2026, 08:53 PM

  First I want to say I did use AI (Claude) for counting and translating latin but it's a human theory:
  
  
  I think the Voynich Manuscript uses a specialized shorthand for herbal recipes, like medieval "chemical notation." I know there are others with similar theories, but I think it might be the right direction. 
  Not a letter-to-letter mapping but it uses morphological encoding. 
  
  Original text:
  
  fachys ykal ar ataiin shol shory cthres y kor sholdy
  sory ckhar or y kair chtaiin shar are cthar cthar dan
  
  Translation:
  
  "Take fresh herbs from root pieces, extract small amount of oil essence from flowers.
  Prepare flower water (infusion) with chopped compound root and leaf powder pieces."
  
  The Rosetta key:
  
  Each word = [PREFIX] + [ROOT] + [SUFFIX]
  
  PREFIXES (what you're doing):
  Examples (not exhaustive, I don't have them all) 
  
  sh- = extract/essence (25 occurrences)
  ch- = compound/mixed (17×)
  d- = dried/powder (18×)
  o- = with/oil (19×)
  s- = water / liquid
  y- = of / from
  
  These almost always appear at the start of words.
  
  ROOTS (what ingredient):
  
  ol = oleum (oil)
  ar = radix (root)
  or = flos (flower)
  a = aqua (water)
  ai = folia → leaf (probable)
  al =  salt / mineral
  e= essentia / essence
  
  Roots appear in the middle of words.
  
  SUFFIXES (grammar/quantity):
  
  -y = singular (43×)
  -n = plural - 100% always final!
  -iin = genitive plural (19×)
  -ain = dative/for purpose (12×)
  -ol = diminutive/small
  -dy = dried state
  -ar = locative (in / at / from
  
  Suffixes appear only at the end of words.
  
  Example: sholdy = [sh=extract] + [ol=oil] + [dy=dried] = "dried oil extract"
  
  Why I think it's plausible:
  
  1. 'n' appears in final position 100% of the time (37/37) and I don't think that's possible in natural language but perfect for a systematic suffix
  
  2.Gallows characters never appear final - t is medial 96% of the time (27/28). These mark PROCESSES: boiling, grinding, mixing. Special characters traditionally called “gallows” are interpreted as process indicators and not letters.
  
  Examples: t, k, ch, th, ph  - boiling, grinding, chopping, mixing
  
  3.Low entropy (3.78 bits) - matches technical terminology, not prose
  
  4. Follows Zipf's law coz it proves it contains real meaning,
  
  5. Words cluster by context, the oil words appear together and the water words appear together

• RE: Specialized shorthand and not a language

  oshfdk > 02-01-2026, 09:24 PM

  Hi,
  
  I've seen a few very similar theories, for example, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Generally I think they are impossible to defend. How can you prove that your interpretation of prefixes/roots/suffixes is the right one?

• RE: Specialized shorthand and not a language

  DerrickMay > 02-01-2026, 09:45 PM

  I know and I've seen that and while that post is very all over the place I still think there is a truth behind it. It makes so much sense to use shorthand if you would write something not meant to be shared with everyone and maybe only with druids or doctors of that era.

• RE: Specialized shorthand and not a language

  Rafal > 02-01-2026, 09:49 PM

  How did you translate
  fachys ykal ar ataiin shol shory cthres y kor sholdy
  to
  Take fresh herbs from root pieces, extract small amount of oil essence from flowers ?
  
  Are you able to give meaning of each word/step?

• RE: Specialized shorthand and not a language

  oshfdk > 02-01-2026, 11:18 PM

  (02-01-2026, 09:45 PM)DerrickMay Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I know and I've seen that and while that post is very all over the place I still think there is a truth behind it. It makes so much sense to use shorthand if you would write something not meant to be shared with everyone and maybe only with druids or doctors of that era.

  
  To me this
  
  

  Quote:"Take fresh herbs from root pieces, extract small amount of oil essence from flowers.
  Prepare flower water (infusion) with chopped compound root and leaf powder pieces."

  
  makes absolutely no sense at all. Which root? What flowers? There is not even a picture on this page. In this system, how exactly are specific plants named? Quantities? Temperatures? Ingredients other than non-specific flowers and roots?

• RE: Specialized shorthand and not a language

  ReneZ > 03-01-2026, 12:10 AM

  (02-01-2026, 09:24 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Generally I think they are impossible to defend. How can you prove that your interpretation of prefixes/roots/suffixes is the right one?

  
  This hits the essense of the problem of all these very similar proposals. (Note that at least one similar proposal predates AI by at least a decade).
  
  This is therefore both a question here, and an open question to all other proposers.
  
  Let's just take the following list:
  
  

  (02-01-2026, 08:53 PM)DerrickMay Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.SUFFIXES (grammar/quantity):
  
  -y = singular (43×)
  -n = plural - 100% always final!
  -iin = genitive plural (19×)
  -ain = dative/for purpose (12×)
  -ol = diminutive/small
  -dy = dried state
  -ar = locative (in / at / from

  
  Question 1: on what are these choices based? Specifically: what if I suggested that '-aiin' should be diminutive and '-ar' should be large... How can one decide which is better? (Of course, the possible variations are enormous).
  
  Question 2: how sure are you of these choices? Could the alternatives actually be equally likely?
  
  An important aspect of the first question is: were these choices made by you or by the LLM?

• RE: Specialized shorthand and not a language

  Bluetoes101 > 03-01-2026, 12:40 AM

  Another issue would probably be, can we do this with any language? 
  If you take what I wrote above and assign meaning to groups of letters, we can have something about preparing herbs too.
  
  Where ideas like this work, is if the vocabulary built up is backed by images, and then the expected terms pop up in further pages. For example if you thought a sound was for "Jesus" and another for "cross" and another for "on" then a page with Jesus on a cross drawn pops up and "Jesus on cross" is there. That's pretty convincing evidence you are on the right track, but your approach seems to need us to ignore images.. so what confirms anything?
  
  "n" being final etc, doesn't mean anything (to add proof of correctness). I could say "n = fullstop" or ! or , or may things, nothing really makes "plural" more correct.
• Next Oldest Next Newest