- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Are marginalia clues?
- Are marginalia clues?
-
Are marginalia clues?
ololololo > 05-07-2026, 01:55 PM
With the exception of the inscriptions in the Zodiac, I believe it is possible that the marginalia on f17r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (specifically "der musdel"), and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were added by someone who understood the manuscript.
The marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. at the end contain two words in Voynich: oteeeor (otcheor) aim, where oteeeor appears in f68r2 and otcheor appears in f70v2. If we do not attempt to interpret the meaning of this text, we can infer that the person understood the significance of these two words.
The part of "der musdel" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks "fresh" in terms of ink color, compared to the inscriptions on the Voynichese and the drawing of the man. It is evident that the man was drawn by the same person who wrote the manuscript, and during the process of writing. It is also possible that the bowl and balls were drawn by the author of "der musdel", but I am not certain. In my opinion, this inscription seems meaningless in any other form, as it is supposed to clarify the drawing on the right.
As for f116v, I can only say that this marginalia contains aror sheey, and the handwriting is similar to that of "der musdel" (at least the "m" letters are identical).
Based on this, it would be possible to try to provide clues to the text in these marginalia. For example, der musdel could be a "continuation" of the text above (roughly speaking, otcheo daiin chty ykchscheg could mean "how to treat this person?" or "it is treated with flour", in which case "der musdel" would specify the type of flour). At the very least, we have reason to believe that the author of these marginalia knew the content of the text. Perhaps he can share his knowledge with us...
What do you think? -
RE: Are marginalia clues?
Jorge_Stolfi > 06-07-2026, 06:12 AM
(05-07-2026, 01:55 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With the exception of the inscriptions in the Zodiac, I believe it is possible that the marginalia on f17r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (specifically "der musdel"), and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were added by someone who understood the manuscript. ... What do you think?
As for f116v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: the original text on that page was all in Voynichese, then a water spill erased everything except the aror Sheey, and the "michiton" text is a pathetic attempt at reconstructing the lost text by someone who did not even know the alphabet.
My guess is that the same explanation holds for the non-Voynichese writing at the top of f17r, although the extent, date, and consequences of the water stain there are much less certain.
I have no theory yet for the non-Vonichese writing at the bottom of f66r.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Are marginalia clues?
Aga Tentakulus > 06-07-2026, 06:28 AM
I always love it when people try to explain my language to me. -
RE: Are marginalia clues?
ErinaBee > 06-07-2026, 01:56 PM
(06-07-2026, 06:12 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(05-07-2026, 01:55 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With the exception of the inscriptions in the Zodiac, I believe it is possible that the marginalia on f17r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (specifically "der musdel"), and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were added by someone who understood the manuscript. ... What do you think?
As for f116v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: the original text on that page was all in Voynichese, then a water spill erased everything except the aror Sheey, and the "michiton" text is a pathetic attempt at reconstructing the lost text by someone who did not even know the alphabet.
My guess is that the same explanation holds for the non-Voynichese writing at the top of f17r, although the extent, date, and consequences of the water stain there are much less certain.
I have no theory yet for the non-Vonichese writing at the bottom of f66r.
All the best, --stolfi
Why would he even try to use Latin if the rest of the book is Voynichese? -
RE: Are marginalia clues?
ololololo > 06-07-2026, 02:55 PM
(06-07-2026, 01:56 PM)ErinaBee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There are two explanations for this:(06-07-2026, 06:12 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(05-07-2026, 01:55 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With the exception of the inscriptions in the Zodiac, I believe it is possible that the marginalia on f17r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (specifically "der musdel"), and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were added by someone who understood the manuscript. ... What do you think?
As for f116v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: the original text on that page was all in Voynichese, then a water spill erased everything except the aror Sheey, and the "michiton" text is a pathetic attempt at reconstructing the lost text by someone who did not even know the alphabet.
My guess is that the same explanation holds for the non-Voynichese writing at the top of f17r, although the extent, date, and consequences of the water stain there are much less certain.
I have no theory yet for the non-Vonichese writing at the bottom of f66r.
All the best, --stolfi
Why would he even try to use Latin if the rest of the book is Voynichese?
1). The author thought that it was not necessary to encrypt the words, so he wrote in clear Latin. In general, if the VMS was created for use by a limited circle of people and it was assumed that only this circle of people would be able to use it (the rest would not understand what was written in it), then there would be no point in excessive secrecy, the book was already "protected" from outsiders.
2). The author was too lazy to encrypt the words, and he wrote them down in Latin, assuming that they would not help in decryption. Maybe he's just tired. -
RE: Are marginalia clues?
ololololo > 06-07-2026, 03:02 PM
(06-07-2026, 06:12 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In fact, it doesn't seem very logical for two reasons:(05-07-2026, 01:55 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With the exception of the inscriptions in the Zodiac, I believe it is possible that the marginalia on f17r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (specifically "der musdel"), and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were added by someone who understood the manuscript. ... What do you think?
As for f116v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: the original text on that page was all in Voynichese, then a water spill erased everything except the aror Sheey, and the "michiton" text is a pathetic attempt at reconstructing the lost text by someone who did not even know the alphabet.
My guess is that the same explanation holds for the non-Voynichese writing at the top of f17r, although the extent, date, and consequences of the water stain there are much less certain.
I have no theory yet for the non-Vonichese writing at the bottom of f66r.
All the best, --stolfi
1). It is unclear why the author had to change the letters during the "reconstruction". If you had a book in conventional Greek, but the inscription on the last page was erased, you wouldn't try to reconstruct the erased text by changing Greek letters to Latin letters, would you? As for the "clumsy cleaner", he hardly had any problems with development, and he would have noticed that the result was some kind of nonsense.
2). For some reason, the same letter rearrangement did not occur on the f103r. Apparently, the "ketchup" stain was left by a more decent person
-
RE: Are marginalia clues?
Jorge_Stolfi > 06-07-2026, 05:01 PM
(06-07-2026, 01:56 PM)ErinaBee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Because he did not know Voynichese, not even the alphabet. Not even enough to know that there were no Latin letters in it.(06-07-2026, 06:12 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for f116v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: the original text on that page was all in Voynichese, then a water spill erased everything except the aror Sheey, and the "michiton" text is a pathetic attempt at reconstructing the lost text by someone who did not even know the alphabet.
Why would he even try to use Latin if the rest of the book is Voynichese?
He may have been an owner who acquired the manuscript out of impulse or by inheritance, looked at the figures for a day or two, and never bothered to study the text -- "just some weird writing".
He could be a librarian scrambling to save a pile of books from damage by a storm and a leaking roof.
He could be a friend of the owner, who borrowed the book out of curiosity, promptly spilled his beer over it, wiped it off, and then clumsily tried to undo the damage.
Anyway, he did not know Voynichese, so when he looked at the few bits of writing that had survived his guesses could only be Latin letters. And since some looked like crosses, he guessed that it must have been a charm...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Are marginalia clues?
ololololo > 06-07-2026, 08:33 PM
(06-07-2026, 05:01 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I'm sorry for being off-topic, but I think we're overestimating the clumsiness of the manuscript's owners. Specifically, taking your example, I believe the owner would have realized that the book was written in a language other than Latin, and they would have had at least a split-second glimpse of the original text on f116v. In any case, this outcome seems possible, but it is very unlikely.(06-07-2026, 01:56 PM)ErinaBee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Because he did not know Voynichese, not even the alphabet. Not even enough to know that there were no Latin letters in it.(06-07-2026, 06:12 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for f116v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: the original text on that page was all in Voynichese, then a water spill erased everything except the aror Sheey, and the "michiton" text is a pathetic attempt at reconstructing the lost text by someone who did not even know the alphabet.
Why would he even try to use Latin if the rest of the book is Voynichese?
He may have been an owner who acquired the manuscript out of impulse or by inheritance, looked at the figures for a day or two, and never bothered to study the text -- "just some weird writing".
He could be a librarian scrambling to save a pile of books from damage by a storm and a leaking roof.
He could be a friend of the owner, who borrowed the book out of curiosity, promptly spilled his beer over it, wiped it off, and then clumsily tried to undo the damage.
Anyway, he did not know Voynichese, so when he looked at the few bits of writing that had survived his guesses could only be Latin letters. And since some looked like crosses, he guessed that it must have been a charm...
All the best, --stolfi