5 ms·

I’ve found this to be one of the most interesting hypotheses: http://voynichproject.org/ http://voynichproject.org/ The author made an assumption that Voyniche

I’ve found this to be one of the most interesting hypotheses: http://voynichproject.org/ http://voynichproject.org/ The author made an assumption that Voynichese is a Germanic language, and it looks like he was able to make some progress with it. I’ve also come across accounts that it might be an Uralic or Finno-Ugric language. I think your approach is great, and I wonder if tweaking it for specific language families could go even further.

veqq 1y ago
This thread discusses the many purported "solutions": https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4341.html https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4341.html While Bernholz' site is nice, Child's work doesn't shed much light on actually deciphering the MS.
- us-merul 1y ago
  Thanks for this! I had come across Child’s hypothesis after doing a search related to Old Prussian and Slavic languages, so I don’t have much context for this solution, and this is helpful to see.
GolfPopper 1y ago
Edward Kelly[1] was in the right place at the right time, and I recall reading many years ago (though I cannot now find the source) some evidence that he was familiar with the Cardan grille[2], which was sufficient to convince me that he was mostly likely the author, and that the book was intended as a hoax or fraud. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kelley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kelley 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardan_grille https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardan_grille
- renhanxue 1y ago
  These days the manuscript is quite conclusively dated to the first half of the 15th century; the parchment it's written on is definitely from that period, since it's been carbon dated to 1404–1438 with 95% confidence. The general style is also consistent with that dating. For example, medievalist Lisa Fagin Davis writes in a recent paper: "[t]he humanistic tendencies of the glyphset, the color palette, and style of the illustrations suggest an origin in the early fifteenth century" [0]. Edward Kelly was born over a hundred years later, so him "being at the right time" seems to be a bit of a stretch. [0]: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3313/keynote2.pdf https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3313/keynote2.pdf
  - emmelaich 1y ago
    I think it's entirely possible the inks are much later. Possibly Kelly erased whatever was on the parchment previously. In fact the drawings might have made liberal use of the original, just to hide that fact. Which is worse actually. Kelly may have semi-erased an existing valuable manuscript.
    - renhanxue 1y ago
      The hypothesis that the manuscript is a palimpsest (that is, written on an old parchment that was scraped clean of a previous text; such recycling was common because parchment was expensive) has been thoroughly rejected. That sort of thing is detectable, in fact there's an entire field of research dedicated to recovering lost texts from palimpsests, but the Voynich manuscript shows absolutely no signs of that.
      - emmelaich 1y ago
        You're right. I have just read a bit about this[0] and agree. I do still believe that it's possible for the expensive parchment to have been obtained by someone uneducated or "naive", or quack and used by them. [0] https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/multispectral-imaging-and-the-voynich-manuscript/ https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/multispe...
philistine 1y ago
With how undecipherable the manuscript is, my personal theory is that it's the work of a naive artist and that there's no language behind it. Just someone aping language without knowing the rules about language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_art It's not a mental issue, it's just a rare thing that happens. Voynich fits the whole bill for the work of a naive artist.
- riffraff 1y ago
  You're not alone. Many have hypothesized this is just made up gibberish given the unusual distribution of glyphs. Not a recent hoax/scam, but an ancient one. It's not like there weren't a ton of fake documents in the middle age and renaissance, from the donation of Constantine to Preserve John's letter.
  - philistine 1y ago
    The way you describe it is why it’s not readily accepted. It’s misunderstood. You called it a hoax/scam and a fake. It’s not! Whoever made the document was sincere in making up something that doesn’t exist. They had no intention to mislead. You wouldn’t call a D&D campaign a hoax because it features nonexistent things?
    - riffraff 1y ago
      So you're saying it's a prop or a rulebook? (an old xkcd comic mentioned this). I doubt it's a rulebook cause it's not a real language. If it's a prop, it would be extremely expensive. Just to get the parchment you'd have to slaughter a herd of ovines, then you'd have to process it, then you'd have to pay a skilled professional or more for months of work to draw and write. So I think the profit motive is more likely, and given we know of a ton of scams like this from this period, it seems the most plausible. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong if someone finds more info in the future.
- cronopios 1y ago
  And that naïve artist somehow managed to create a work that follows Zipf's law, 4 centuries before it was discovered?

veqq 1y ago

This thread discusses the many purported "solutions": https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4341.html https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4341.html While Bernholz' site is nice, Child's work doesn't shed much light on actually deciphering the MS.

us-merul 1y ago
Thanks for this! I had come across Child’s hypothesis after doing a search related to Old Prussian and Slavic languages, so I don’t have much context for this solution, and this is helpful to see.

GolfPopper 1y ago

Edward Kelly[1] was in the right place at the right time, and I recall reading many years ago (though I cannot now find the source) some evidence that he was familiar with the Cardan grille[2], which was sufficient to convince me that he was mostly likely the author, and that the book was intended as a hoax or fraud. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kelley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kelley 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardan_grille https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardan_grille

renhanxue 1y ago
These days the manuscript is quite conclusively dated to the first half of the 15th century; the parchment it's written on is definitely from that period, since it's been carbon dated to 1404–1438 with 95% confidence. The general style is also consistent with that dating. For example, medievalist Lisa Fagin Davis writes in a recent paper: "[t]he humanistic tendencies of the glyphset, the color palette, and style of the illustrations suggest an origin in the early fifteenth century" [0]. Edward Kelly was born over a hundred years later, so him "being at the right time" seems to be a bit of a stretch. [0]: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3313/keynote2.pdf https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3313/keynote2.pdf
- emmelaich 1y ago
  I think it's entirely possible the inks are much later. Possibly Kelly erased whatever was on the parchment previously. In fact the drawings might have made liberal use of the original, just to hide that fact. Which is worse actually. Kelly may have semi-erased an existing valuable manuscript.
  - renhanxue 1y ago
    The hypothesis that the manuscript is a palimpsest (that is, written on an old parchment that was scraped clean of a previous text; such recycling was common because parchment was expensive) has been thoroughly rejected. That sort of thing is detectable, in fact there's an entire field of research dedicated to recovering lost texts from palimpsests, but the Voynich manuscript shows absolutely no signs of that.
    - emmelaich 1y ago
      You're right. I have just read a bit about this[0] and agree. I do still believe that it's possible for the expensive parchment to have been obtained by someone uneducated or "naive", or quack and used by them. [0] https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/multispectral-imaging-and-the-voynich-manuscript/ https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/multispe...

philistine 1y ago

With how undecipherable the manuscript is, my personal theory is that it's the work of a naive artist and that there's no language behind it. Just someone aping language without knowing the rules about language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_art It's not a mental issue, it's just a rare thing that happens. Voynich fits the whole bill for the work of a naive artist.

riffraff 1y ago
You're not alone. Many have hypothesized this is just made up gibberish given the unusual distribution of glyphs. Not a recent hoax/scam, but an ancient one. It's not like there weren't a ton of fake documents in the middle age and renaissance, from the donation of Constantine to Preserve John's letter.
- philistine 1y ago
  The way you describe it is why it’s not readily accepted. It’s misunderstood. You called it a hoax/scam and a fake. It’s not! Whoever made the document was sincere in making up something that doesn’t exist. They had no intention to mislead. You wouldn’t call a D&D campaign a hoax because it features nonexistent things?
  - riffraff 1y ago
    So you're saying it's a prop or a rulebook? (an old xkcd comic mentioned this). I doubt it's a rulebook cause it's not a real language. If it's a prop, it would be extremely expensive. Just to get the parchment you'd have to slaughter a herd of ovines, then you'd have to process it, then you'd have to pay a skilled professional or more for months of work to draw and write. So I think the profit motive is more likely, and given we know of a ton of scams like this from this period, it seems the most plausible. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong if someone finds more info in the future.
cronopios 1y ago
And that naïve artist somehow managed to create a work that follows Zipf's law, 4 centuries before it was discovered?