Torsten > 22-02-2026, 03:49 PM
(22-02-2026, 02:15 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One point on this:
The observations on the development of vocabulary in the VMS are real and valuable, but I consider the conclusions drawn from them to be questionable. Having recently studied medieval German manuscripts intensively – Ortloff von Baierland, the Breslau Pharmacopoeia, Admonter Bartholomäus – I have also noticed such deviations within individual texts by individual authors. Spelling changes over the course of a manuscript. The frequency of words shifts dramatically depending on what is being described. The similarity between early and late sections decreases significantly, even in a simple medical text. All this does not require complex systems or even a self-citation process – it is simply what happens when a person writes a long text over weeks or months, possibly copying from different sources, changing topics or gradually changing their writing habits. The assumption that a “static system” should provide identical statistics on every page sets a bar that no real medieval manuscript could reach.
Torsten > 22-02-2026, 03:54 PM
(22-02-2026, 03:13 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One question - sorry if I missed this but where would you put the zodiac pages in your reconstructed order?
Herbal in Currier A (Quire 1-8, 17)
Pharma in Currier A (Quire 15 + 19)
Astro (Quire 9)
Cosmo/Zodiac (Quire 10, 11, 12, 14)
Herbal in Currier B (Quire 4-8, 17)
Stars in Currier B (Quire 20)
Biological/Balnological in Currier B (Quire 13)Quire 1 Herbal A
Quire 2 Herbal A
Quire 3 Herbal A
Quire 4 Herbal A, Herbal B
Quire 5 Herbal A, Herbal B
Quire 6 Herbal A, Herbal B
Quire 7 Herbal A, Herbal B
Quire 8 Herbal A, Herbal B
Quire 9 Astro
Quire 10 Cosmo
Quire 11 Cosmo
Quire 12 Cosmo
Quire 13 Bio in Currier B
Quire 14 Cosmo
Quire 15 Pharma in Currier A
Quire 16 Missing
Quire 17 Herbal A, Herbal B
Quire 18 Missing
Quire 19 Pharma in Currier A
Quire 20 StarsJoJo_Jost > 22-02-2026, 07:54 PM
(22-02-2026, 03:49 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Vocabulary evolves in strict directional chains with intermediate forms (<chol> -> <cheol> -> <cheo> -> <chey> -> <chedy>), and words from early sections persist in late sections but never the reverse. [...]
In Ortloff von Baierland the word "und" may be extremely frequent, but it does not generate dozens of single-edit variants clustering on the same pages.

dexdex > 23-02-2026, 04:01 PM
(22-02-2026, 02:34 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(22-02-2026, 01:56 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I tend to think we spend too much time "psychologizing" the Voynich composer, but for once I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Do you have a sense of why someone would make a text this way? I get it is ultimately unfalsifiable and I don't think your paper---which I think is one of the better attempts I've seen to grapple with the word families---lives or dies on it, but I just cannot get my head around why someone would create this artifact with autocitation and drawings.
You're right that the question of motivation is ultimately speculative, and I appreciate that you recognize the paper doesn't depend on answering it. Still, I think the question "why would someone create this?" becomes less puzzling once we separate two things that often get conflated: the motivation for creating the manuscript as an object, and the method by which the text was generated.
On the method, there is no mystery at all. The Gaskell and Bowern (2022) experiment shows that self-citation is not a strategy someone consciously adopts — it is what inevitably happens when a person produces extended pseudo-text. Participants asked to generate just 100 words of meaningless text spontaneously began copying and modifying their own output, simply because inventing genuinely new forms is cognitively exhausting (Bowern & Lindemann, 2021). The Voynich Manuscript contains roughly 38,000 tokens. At that scale, self-citation isn't a choice — it's a cognitive default. Whatever the scribe's original intention, the text generation process would have converged on copying and modifying previously written words simply because of the volume required. D'Imperio (1978) already observed that someone with the intention of producing dummy text "would naturally tend to repeat parts of neighboring strings with various small changes." The scribe need not have known they were doing it.
On the motivation for the object itself, that question will most likely remain unanswerable unless additional historical documents surface. As Timm and Schinner (2020) note, "probably, the author was undergoing the substantial effort of creating the VMS in order to gain something. Not necessarily money for selling the book, although (because the algorithm can be executed by an experienced scribe almost as fast as writing down the text) the effort even for a 'classical fraud' now appears more reasonable. Perhaps it was about gaining reputation by possessing a mysterious book that no one would ever be able to decipher (simply because there really is nothing to decipher in it)" (p. 16).
Personally, I find the idea of a forgery intended for sale less convincing than the alternative: that the manuscript served to impress. Consider a physician who could claim that his superior knowledge derived from a mysterious book — one filled with illustrations of plants, astronomical diagrams, and human bodies, written in a learned-looking script that no one could read. In a fifteenth-century context, the possession of such a book would have conveyed authority and esoteric expertise. No one could verify what it "said," and that was precisely the point. The sheer craftsmanship — the vellum, the illustrations, the consistent calligraphic hand — would have reinforced the impression of a genuine scholarly work, while the impenetrable script would have discouraged anyone from questioning its content.
The illustrations, on this reading, don't require a separate explanation. They are part of making the object convincing as a medical or philosophical reference work. And the text doesn't need to encode information — it needs only to look as though it does.
Jorge_Stolfi > 23-02-2026, 09:40 PM
JoJo_Jost > 23-02-2026, 09:51 PM
rikforto > 23-02-2026, 10:37 PM
We know it's neither Romanized Bavarian nor (I assume) Romanized Chinese. Bear in mind that Mandarin, conventionally written and analyzed, has an edit distance of exactly 1 between every word, but a different finding in Pinyin, and a different one still in Bopomofo and so on.nablator > 23-02-2026, 11:20 PM
(23-02-2026, 10:37 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but a different finding in Pinyin
rikforto > 23-02-2026, 11:38 PM
(23-02-2026, 11:20 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-02-2026, 10:37 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but a different finding in Pinyin
If "words" are the pinyin romanizations of Chinese, 100% of all word types form a single connected network through single-letter edits.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
nablator > 24-02-2026, 12:16 AM
(22-02-2026, 02:15 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Having recently studied medieval German manuscripts intensively – Ortloff von Baierland, the Breslau Pharmacopoeia, Admonter Bartholomäus – I have also noticed such deviations within individual texts by individual authors. Spelling changes over the course of a manuscript. The frequency of words shifts dramatically depending on what is being described. The similarity between early and late sections decreases significantly, even in a simple medical text.
(23-02-2026, 09:51 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Ortloff von baierland has 74.4% connected...