Rafal > 31-05-2026, 12:26 PM
Quote:Regardless of whether my translations are correct, do you think it is possible that the author could have written the manuscript in this way?
In concrete terms:
• with abbreviated word forms,
• by renouncing part of the grammar,
• with individual abbreviations,
• as a kind of personal notation or memorization style,
• with the aim of making the content difficult for third parties to understand, but still being able to read fluently.

![[Image: note2_small.jpg]](https://ciphermysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2013/03/note2_small.jpg)
Stefan Wirtz_2 > 01-06-2026, 09:04 PM
(31-05-2026, 06:37 AM)Thorsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
Regardless of whether my translations are correct, do you think it is possible that the author could have written the manuscript in this way?
-
Unabhängig davon, ob meine Übersetzungen korrekt sind – haltet ihr es grundsätzlich für möglich, dass der Verfasser das Manuskript auf diese Weise geschrieben haben könnte?[..]
tavie > 03-06-2026, 04:42 PM
ololololo > 03-06-2026, 10:20 PM
Thorsten > Yesterday, 06:17 AM
(31-05-2026, 07:03 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm looking for something similar in German.
Thorsten > Yesterday, 09:10 AM
(01-06-2026, 09:04 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a bit of a contradiction:
Maybe there was an author with such idea; but the VMS was written by probably a small group of scribes.
To write all this as fluently as the texts do look, all involved persons would have had the need of understanding the "shorthand / abbreviation system" of the 'author', since even just copying such a non-natural writing would have been a hell.
ololololo > Yesterday, 01:17 PM
(Yesterday, 06:17 AM)Thorsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not a new thing that medieval authors used abbreviations. They could shorten every word if it wasn't small enough.(31-05-2026, 07:03 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm looking for something similar in German.
I can recommend here the Cod. Pal. Germ. 213 as an example, which in my opinion has many parallels to the VM.
Many words are abbreviated into this manuscript. However, to a usual extent, since this text should remain readable for everyone.
Nevertheless, the examples show that thinking in abbreviations was normal and did not hinder fluent reading for the experienced reader.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thorsten > Yesterday, 03:28 PM
(Yesterday, 01:17 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not a new thing that medieval authors used abbreviations. They could shorten every word if it wasn't small enough.
Of course, internally, your theory is consistent, but Voynich's manuscript doesn't really seem like someone's "prank" or "creative idea of a shortened language." And yet... why this particular way? Why not, for example, shorten all words to a single letter? Why create new alphabet?
ololololo > 9 hours ago
(Yesterday, 03:28 PM)Thorsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems (and in general, it is) that for a 15th-century reader, a book with abbreviations would be much more understandable than it is for us now. But you know, it doesn't change anything. What you call abbreviations in relation to the manuscript still stand out from the literature of that time, and they don't really resemble Latin in appearance.(Yesterday, 01:17 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not a new thing that medieval authors used abbreviations. They could shorten every word if it wasn't small enough.
Of course, internally, your theory is consistent, but Voynich's manuscript doesn't really seem like someone's "prank" or "creative idea of a shortened language." And yet... why this particular way? Why not, for example, shorten all words to a single letter? Why create new alphabet?
I don't think the VM is talking about a "prank" at this point. Presumably, a translation problem has arisen here.
I am currently resolving the string in question as sch.e.z. First of all, I used the Middle High German word schërz (stm.) and translated with the New High German "joke". In retrospect, however, I think this choice of words is misleading. What would then be meant would not be that the manuscript itself is a joke or a forgery, but rather that it should seem like an inconsequential occupation to the author's environment – like an ordinary herbal or astronomy book that does not give rise to any particular interest.
In the meantime, I think other assignments are even more likely. If, for example, you look at schërz (swm.) or schërzel (stn.), there is the meaning of a "cut piece" or a small section of wood, paper or bread. These readings might fit the context better.
As JoJo_Jost have already correctly noted, the choice of the long word currently still depends on my personal assessment. That's exactly why I'm currently working on further narrowing down the number of possible assignments. My goal is to base the interpretation more strongly on recurring word uses and contextual references, thereby reducing the number of plausible alternatives.
To the question of why it was not shortened to one letter:
A reduction to just a single letter per word would ultimately make the text almost unreadable even for the author himself. Therefore, I assume that a compromise had to be found between brevity and readability.
The question also arises as to why a separate sign system was also used. My guess is that the people of the 15th century were much more familiar with abbreviations and abbreviations than we are today. An experienced reader would probably have recognized many word abbreviations relatively quickly. The additional layer of character substitution would therefore provide further protection and make it more difficult to read immediately.
My previous experience with the signs indicates that they are no longer a significant obstacle after a certain training period. On the contrary: Some classifications seem surprisingly memorable to me.
For example, I map the character for r to z. This seems unusual at first, but it is easy to remember, as the shape is reminiscent of the spelling of the number two in the 15th century.
Other signs also show possible mnemonic aids. For example, the sign ce for m has two arcs, just like the Latin m. These were merely turned to the side and delimited by an additional line of two l standing next to each other.
The character for Sh looks like an upside-down w, which in turn was indicated by the reversible arc above it.
The character s for v can then be understood as half a w, so to speak.
Of course, I cannot prove whether these observations actually explain the original origin of the signs. However, I find it remarkable that such mnemonics arise again and again when learning the system.
.