vosreth > 06-02-2026, 08:20 PM
(06-02-2026, 02:01 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I usually treat the manuscript as a cipher, so for me all of these are glyph sequences that have no semantics of their own.On the cipher framing: I agree that treating the glyphs as having no semantics of their own is reasonable. But the structural question remains regardless. I am curious whether you see these patterns arising from a system that operates before encoding (a language, notation, or formal system), or from one that operates during encoding? And what properties would such a system need in order to reproduce the observed boundary and continuation effects?
(06-02-2026, 11:02 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It and i are the only strokes that repeat. Many words have the format of starting as a e stroke string and continuing as an i stroke string. I mentioned something about this in previous posts [ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ]. My personal conviction is that it is just a fabrication. An easy way for the writer to construct meaningless text.dashstofsk's stroke-repetition observations are indeed something to note, and Bluetoes101's transition rules formalise similar intuitions. These are genuinely interesting frameworks. But I'm not sure "easy to repeat" accounts for everything. Take the e/ee/eee pattern: single e follows ch/sh about 63% of the time, ee only 28%, and eee just 9%. The environment shifts systematically as length increases. If this were simply about ease of repetition, why would longer chains actively avoid appearing after ch/sh? A grammatical analogy might be a derivational gradient ("quickly" → "quick" → "quickness") where longer forms occupy different structural positions. What would the ergonomic account predict here?
oshfdk > 06-02-2026, 11:01 PM
(06-02-2026, 08:20 PM)vosreth Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the cipher framing: I agree that treating the glyphs as having no semantics of their own is reasonable. But the structural question remains regardless. I am curious whether you see these patterns arising from a system that operates before encoding (a language, notation, or formal system), or from one that operates during encoding?
(06-02-2026, 08:20 PM)vosreth Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And what properties would such a system need in order to reproduce the observed boundary and continuation effects?
dashstofsk > 07-02-2026, 09:26 AM
(06-02-2026, 08:20 PM)vosreth Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Labels: q 1.0%, standalone s 15.5%
Paragraphs: q 15.8%, standalone s 6.5%
Circular text: q 2.0%, standalone s 12.9%
Radial text: q 5.0%, standalone s 15.9%
vosreth > 07-02-2026, 01:54 PM
(07-02-2026, 09:26 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is only the meaningful hypothesist who is troubled by this: "Words and spelling and text should be uniform everywhere, in paragraphs, labels, radials, circulars, but it is clearly not so. Why, why?"
(06-02-2026, 11:01 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-02-2026, 08:20 PM)vosreth Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And what properties would such a system need in order to reproduce the observed boundary and continuation effects?
I'm not sure this is the right question, I believe there are many totally different ways to create these patterns. This is I think the approach @magnesium took with the Naibbe cipher - recreating some of the statistical properties of Voynichese in a plausible way. Does this bring us closer to understanding how the Voynich Manuscript was created? I don't know.
One thing that is almost certain is that if Voynichese is a cipher, it's a one to many cipher, one that allows encoding the same plaintext in many possible ways.
(07-02-2026, 09:26 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can see a possible explanation for the differences between paragraph text and non-paragraph text ( labels, radials, circulars ). And it is once again consistent with the hypothesis that the manuscript is meaningless.
Labels, radial text, circular text would have been written after the drawings were completed, when a page was nearly completed. Radials and circulars would also have needed the writer to turn the page.
The writer, perhaps because drawing was not his forte or because the need for turning broke the momentum of his work, may have been in a different mindset when the time came to do the labels, radials, circulars. Perhaps he just did not have the same motivation for the astrological charts, and turned to the comfort of easy-to-write words. It is a psychological trick. When we are annoyed we do things differently.
Paragraph text, however, was less complicated. The writer just sat and wrote, line after line, a continuous stream without stopping, a whole page in one uninterrupted sitting, not having to shift and turn.
Rafal > 07-02-2026, 02:41 PM
Quote:VMS shows a fivefold shift depending on what came before. Naibbe is flat as Norfolk. Why? Naibbe doesn't know what it just wrote. Each word is encrypted fresh.