- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
A Numeric Solution
- A Numeric Solution
-
A Numeric Solution
Legit > 03-01-2026, 08:57 PM
Greetings,
My name is David Leimbach and although I've had an interest in the Voynich Manuscript for many years this is my first time writing about it.
I'd like to draw attention to some issues that may be misdirecting our intuition and a solution to that misdirection.
Here I try to take a look through a scribes eyes and build a small profile regarding glyph consistency. Due to the severe lack of errors and the consistency with which glyphs are written in the text I don't think it's controversial to suggest each scribe was very skilled at their work but with some caveats.
It is clear there is great consistency among some glyphs but a lack of consistency among others.
Gallows glyphs are all over the place in height and form. Meanwhile many other glyphs look almost rubber stamped in their consistent size and shape. I would suggest this means we have many commonly known glyphs that scribes would have spent their entire careers writing and some new unusual glyphs, but to us and our scribe these are not the same sets of glyphs.
I propose Voynich glyphs are not all as unusual as they appear to us. I believe our scribe would be very familiar with some glyphs and that familiarity would help them write many consistently, but would actually know them as numbers.
Even the most skeptical must admit: the EVA-y is unmistakably the number 4. If this is a 4, could EVA-o be a 0? And then where are the other numbers? I propose many of the glyphs that are being considered as letters, should instead be read as numbers.
Our scribe as would any scribes of the time see these glyphs EVA-o,i(and n),r(and m),l,v,d(and g),y and see them immediately for what they are. The numbers 0,1,2,4,7,8,9. Of course 3,5,6 have no place in any self respecting book of appreciation for lumpy women so I must leave these to you to decide
Number images from Ms. Barth. 24, c. 1460s, Rhein region.
These characters of note can easily be read as:
EVA-n is the number 1 at the end of a "word"
EVA-m is the number 2 at the end of a "word"
EVA-g is the number 8 at the end of a "word"
These all resemble the suggested number with an additional descender or end of word flourish and all appear only at the ends of words.
Furthermore EVA-i as the number 1 appears in the middle of words, but never at the end. EVA-n appears only at the end of words. Here's a little bit more evidence as I interpret this bit from folio 5v. EVA-n is usually made in a single pen stroke. You see two identical words, except on the second one it appears the scribe forgot the tail, finished the 1 and then added it in an additional stroke. The fact that the first stroke would by itself be an EVA-i adds to this impression.
This leaves gallows and our new alphabet is much reduced: EVA-a,c,s,e,h,q,x,z
My reference for numbers is taken from Ms. Barth. 24, c. 1460s, Rhein region. Here is a sample (page 4)
Unfortunately seen through these eyes does not give the VM such a sexy look that we're used to seeing anymore. To see the VM as a medieval scribe might and replacing gallows with characters on my keyboard leaves us looking at it like this. Here is the first paragraph of 1r, for illustration I've also swapped the gallows
EVA-f = &
EVA-p = $
EVA-t = #
EVA-k = %
&ach9s 9%a4 a2 a#a111 sh04 sh029 c#h2es 9 %02 sh0489 s029 c%ha2 02 9 %a12 ch#a111 sha2 a2e c#ha2 c#ha2 8a1 s9a112 she%9 02 9%a111 sh08 c#h0a29 c#hes 8a2a111 sa 00111 0#ee9 0#e0s 2040#9 c#ha2 8a111 0#a111 02 0%a1 8a12 9 chea2 c#ha111 c$ha2 c&ha111
The VM would have appeared much more familiar to a reader at the time it was written as a book of codes to be deciphered and not seen as a language to be translatable into any other written or spoken language.
Clearly this approach to looking at the glyphs has lots of implications, first of which is that there are no translatable words in the manuscript as commonly thought. Instead we're looking at codes which refer to some unknown keys that we must somehow reconstruct.
Thank you for your consideration. -
RE: A Numeric Solution
Koen G > 03-01-2026, 09:28 PM
Thank you for this refreshing (and LLM-free!) first post!
To be fair, EVA was constructed with the express purpose to be able to talk in a more human-friendly and typing-friendly way about Voynichese. otaiin is just easier to work with for a person typing and reading than 0#a111. In a way it became too successful, because as you point out, it makes the thing seem more alphabet-like than it actually is.
The resemblance to numerical and non-alphabetical characters has been remarked before, but I'm not sure if many people are aware of it to this extent. You present it in a pretty clear and structured way.
Now EVA-v is extremely rare, and I wouldn't take it into account for something like this. So you're looking at potential allusions to 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9.
Then there's the fact that Voynichese glyphs sort themselves in a word in a way similar to Roman numerals. This gives you EVA e, ch... as potential C (100).
The question would be if any of that is relevant, and where to go from there... -
RE: A Numeric Solution
oshfdk > 03-01-2026, 10:30 PM
(03-01-2026, 08:57 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VM would have appeared much more familiar to a reader at the time it was written as a book of codes to be deciphered and not seen as a language to be translatable into any other written or spoken language.
I'm not sure about this.
The closest opinion we have to that of medieval scribes chronologically would be that of Baresch in the XVII century, in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. he refers to "unknown characters" and "unknown script", never mentioning codes or numbers. (It must be said that not everyone agrees that Baresch was referring to the Voynich Manuscript.)
What is more, the most common 10 glyphs (counting ligatures) of the manuscript are:
o e ch y a d i k l r
Of these only l looks like a clear digit and d more like a digit, but can also be s in various scripts, if I'm not mistaken. o and y on their own would look more like letters/abbreviations than digits and I don't think r as written in the MS looks anything like a normally written digit at all. So, I don't think this will immediately look like a number based code book to a medieval scribe. -
RE: A Numeric Solution
Jorge_Stolfi > 04-01-2026, 01:12 AM
(03-01-2026, 08:57 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even the most skeptical must admit: the EVA-y is unmistakably the number 4. If this is a 4, could EVA-o be a 0?
Sorry, but those are just meaningless coincidences. If you make up an alphabet from combinations of 1-3 simple pen strokes, it is almost guaranteed that some letters will look exactly like some letters of other alphabets. Just by chance.
Japanese hiragana "HI" looks very much like Latin "U". The Georgian letters for the sounds "o", "q", and "w" look like Latin "m", "y", and the digit "3". And so on...
Besides, a more common reading of Voynichese y in Latin manuscript is the abbreviation for the ending "-us". You can see it in the VMS quire numbers, as "1y" for "primus", etc, But of course y does not mean "-us" (or "4", or "9") in Voynichese text.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: A Numeric Solution
Legit > 04-01-2026, 03:43 AM
(04-01-2026, 01:12 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(03-01-2026, 08:57 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even the most skeptical must admit: the EVA-y is unmistakably the number 4. If this is a 4, could EVA-o be a 0?
Sorry, but those are just meaningless coincidences. If you make up an alphabet from combinations of 1-3 simple pen strokes, it is almost guaranteed that some letters will look exactly like some letters of other alphabets. Just by chance.
Japanese hiragana "HI" looks very much like Latin "U". The Georgian letters for the sounds "o", "q", and "w" look like Latin "m", "y", and the digit "3". And so on...
Besides, a more common reading of Voynichese y in Latin manuscript is the abbreviation for the ending "-us". You can see it in the VMS quire numbers, as "1y" for "primus", etc, But of course y does not mean "-us" (or "4", or "9") in Voynichese text.
All the best, --stolfi
The Ms Barth (1460) sample numbers I've shown are from around the same time period and location as the manuscript is from. The images in the VM and dating of the parchment place it at the same time period and in that region.
The presumed 4 is not just a similar shape. It's exactly the same in detail. You may notice that the left descender is longer than the right and hangs below the baseline of the text.
Likewise the descender on the 9 also hangs below the baseline of the letters and has the same curve in both the VM and the Ms Barth number 9. The scribe who wrote the Ms Barth would certainly read those VM glyphs as a 4 and 9.
A scribe who is well practiced, from the same time period and area as the VM would see looped 4's written exactly like the EVA-y in other manuscripts. It would be unusual for the author of the VM to invent a character by coincidence that was already commonly used in other manuscripts around them at that time.
All translation attempts so far that use Latin number glyphs as abbreviations have been invalidated. This is also why I am suggesting these number glyphs could be intended to be used as numbers.
(03-01-2026, 10:30 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(03-01-2026, 08:57 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VM would have appeared much more familiar to a reader at the time it was written as a book of codes to be deciphered and not seen as a language to be translatable into any other written or spoken language.
I'm not sure about this.
The closest opinion we have to that of medieval scribes chronologically would be that of Baresch in the XVII century, in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. he refers to "unknown characters" and "unknown script", never mentioning codes or numbers. (It must be said that not everyone agrees that Baresch was referring to the Voynich Manuscript.)
What is more, the most common 10 glyphs (counting ligatures) of the manuscript are:
o e ch y a d i k l r
Of these only l looks like a clear digit and d more like a digit, but can also be s in various scripts, if I'm not mistaken. o and y on their own would look more like letters/abbreviations than digits and I don't think r as written in the MS looks anything like a normally written digit at all. So, I don't think this will immediately look like a number based code book to a medieval scribe.
I was wondering about someone like Baresch. Keeping in mind that Baresch was looking at the manuscript 2 centuries after it was written and the common number system was closer to what we use today, I'm not surprised he was confused. The amount of information he would have had available was miniscule. Drinking mercury and leach treatments didn't help either. -
RE: A Numeric Solution
Koen G > 04-01-2026, 09:50 AM
Stolfi: when they invent new alphabets, they tend to come up with novel shapes (or known shapes from other ciphers), not things they know all too well look like numbers. -
RE: A Numeric Solution
Jorge_Stolfi > 04-01-2026, 10:23 AM
(04-01-2026, 09:50 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stolfi: when they invent new alphabets, they tend to come up with novel shapes (or known shapes from other ciphers), not things they know all too well look like numbers.
Maybe you are thinking of cipher alphabets? There is still no evidence that the VMS is in cipher...
In the Shavian alphabet (a 20th century proposed phonetic alphabet for English), the symbols for the sounds "f", "l", and "m" look like the Latin letters "J", "c", and "s", respectively...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: A Numeric Solution
oshfdk > 04-01-2026, 12:03 PM
(04-01-2026, 03:43 AM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was wondering about someone like Baresch. Keeping in mind that Baresch was looking at the manuscript 2 centuries after it was written and the common number system was closer to what we use today, I'm not surprised he was confused. The amount of information he would have had available was miniscule. Drinking mercury and leach treatments didn't help either.
I can't agree with your assessment of Baresch's knowledge on the matter.
While it's not impossible that there is a numeric solution to the MS and it has been suggested many times before (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), but visually I think the script is designed to look like text and I think medieval readers who don't know what this is would perceive it as some kind of text and not as strings of numbers.
Edit: by the way, the post I linked above mentions letter assignments for different digit-like shapes:
"In Latin, all of the VMS “numeral” shapes can double as letters:- The “7” that looks like a caret sometimes stood for “a”.
- The “8” often stood for “s” or “d”.
- The “9” symbol could be a number or a very common Latin abbreviation used at the beginnings and ends of words.
- In early medieval Latin texts, EVA-l (numeral “4”) was used as an abbreviation symbol, a convention that had mostly disappeared by the 15th century."
- The “7” that looks like a caret sometimes stood for “a”.
-
RE: A Numeric Solution
Rafal > 04-01-2026, 12:31 PM
You shouldn't really forget about C being 100 in Roman numerals
You may say: "Hey, we are talking about Arabic numerals!".
But actually there was a time when people sometimes were mixing both notations and creating weird, non-standard hybrids.
Have a look:
It was roughly the same time as when Voynich Manuscript was created.
Voynichese may belong to this tradition, taking mixed inspiration from Roman numbers, Arabic numbers, pilcrows ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) and other stuff.
Still Voynichese words (or "vords" ) aren't pure numbers. They are too regular for normal words and too irregular for numbers.