why it’s a code or cipher
27.04.2017
I’ve spent many many hours on language analysis and finally came to the conclusion that the Voynich manuscript has all the features of a natural language, but it can not be substituted by a normal language.
Therefore it must be a ciphered text. That is to say, at least partly ciphered
A codebook could be used for example, such a thing looks like this:
[p]= item
[daiin] = synonymis
[89] = dyoscordides
[98] = apuleius
Most of the time there is not really a system for words.
On the other end, a cipher could look like this:
[98] => 17 => 17th letter of Latin alphabet
or
[daiin] => [d]=null, aiin=aun => ein
A substitute cipher:
[daiin] => d=ex, aii=am, n=p[le] => example
A script is a general name for anything that can be transliterated, a translating has to determine what it means.
* More info examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script
* and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
This article is to remind me of all my previous research, so that I will not fall back again into the trap of the Voynich text, over and over again. And remain focused on the cipher.
First the impossibilities of the text is shown.
For example take the text on the plant, which is defined as a possible tree on f35v:
The page starts: Parchor chocthy roaiin ar …
Let us assume that the ligature P stands for Item. Read more on Item here.
Then we could read: Item arbor. Read more here on 35v
Let’s take the first 6 lines:
<f35v.1> parchor.chocthy.roaiin.ar
<f35v.2> qotchy.o,tchey.kchor.yty
<f35v.3> dchor.choty.chyty.daiin
<f35v.4> ytchy.qotchy.dchy.cthy
<f35v.5> dchokchy.chocthy.chckhor
<f35v.6> c5hol.tcheey.chkcheean.chcthaiin.
Based on arbor, we now can check the letter substitution.
p=item
ar ch or=ar b or -> ch=b
For convenience the c5h is replaced by ch, and then we would get:
item_arbor.bocthy.roaiin.ar.
qotby.otbey.kbor.yty.
dbor.boty.byty.daiin.
ytby.qotby.dby.cthy.
dbokby.bocthy.bckhor.
bol.tbeey.bkbeean.bcthaiin.
We now have all these b- words that are alike and only a sort of word exercise would enable us make gibberish from it.
Let’s try something else.
Assume that we do not have to know the exact letters, if we would know what the code-words mean.
Assume that we know that [chor]=herb. Not the letters exactly, but the word means herb, at this point we do not care if the original text was Chinese or English. So we get:
par_herb_.chocthy.roaiin.ar.
qotchy.otchey.k_herb_.yty.
d_herb_.choty.chyty.daiin.
ytchy.qotchy.dchy.cthy.
dchokchy.chocthy.chckhor.
chol.tcheey.chkcheean.chcthaiin.
tchot_herb_.chol.cho.co.kol.daiin.
oaiin.t_herb_.cho.chotchy.dchol.d.
qokchaiin.cho.kcho.l.choiin.
okcheey.chosar._herb_y.
There is also a very tiny variant of the word [chor] and that is [chol].
It is only logical if [chor]=herb that [chol] is something very similar.
And then there is [choc].
For argument sake, let’s say it means flower. I’ve made those words blue [chol] and green [choc].
Now there is another variant [chot] and [chok] and there are more…
Also, you can see that I’ve respected the spacing, although there is sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the subscription. For example:
cho.co.kol.daiin. -> could be: choc. okol.daiin.
cho.kcho.l.choiin. -> could be: chok. chol. choiin.
You can see that it is almost impossible to make so much variations with the word and maintain normal grammar.
Even if it does mean we have many nulls, such as [y], or if the real code -word is not herb, but another word which has many compositions. Even then, it is quite impossible to make sense of only these 6 lines! Imagine how impossible it is to match the entire text to such rules!
Another explanation could be that the words are not really a sentence with grammar but a list of words, for example alternative names of the herbal. However that assumption can not hold if you look at the iterations of the words throughout the manuscript.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
For the second example, we take the 7 virtues pages on f85r2. Read more on it here.
The text reads:
okees. ochar. otedar. ochedy. otody. olchedy. otchdo. ar. or. air. ol. otees. ar. ar. am
And if we assume these are the 7 virtues in Portugese or another language we can assume it says:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| okees. | ochar. | otedar. | ochedy. | otody. | olchedy. | otchdo. |
| virtue1 | virtue2 | virtue3 | virtue4 | virtue5 | virtue6 | virtue7 |
| the tempation | the age | |||||
But even if we could translate the 7 nouns, how can we explain the repeated small words [ar] from the line [ar. or. air. ol. otees. ar. ar. am] ? Read more on amen here
If these words are for example “the” it would say:
the xx and xy thing the the amen.
and that does not look like correct grammar.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Ok, just one more example to make sure:
| f1v.P.3: | do.ckhy.ckho.ckhy.c5hy.dkc5heey.cthy.kotchody.dal. |
If we expect, “this herb” in Italian, it will say something like:
| f1v.P.3: | do.erba.erbo.erba.e5ba.dre5beea.etba.roteboda.dal. |
On the other hand if we would just take a particular sequence there are many possibilities.
For example, asssume
[c] =e
[k] =r
[h] =b
[y] =a
[daiin]=h
we would get:
f6v.P.17
y.chaiir.ckhal.ct hodam.dy.
a.eba h-.erbal.et bodam.da.
f1r.P1.2
sory.ckhar.or.y.kair.chtaiin.c5har.are.cthar.cthar.dan.
sora.erbar.or.a.rair.ebtaiin.e5bar.are.etbar.etbar.dan.
f2r.P.7
c5hor.ckhy.daiiny.chol.dan
e5bor.erba.Ha.ebol.dan
Does not really make sense, as a whole, but neither as part of a sentence construction, does it?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
31.1.2019
Conclusion
Sentences like “red leaves are annoying leaf and leaf” and repeated words like “daiin daiin” or “chedy chedy”
remain nonsense in every language that ever existed if you want to use the entire text.
Yes, it COULD be that one or two lines, and even perhaps half a page can be “translated” using a particular substution, but never ENTIRE PAGES, or the ENTIRE manuscript.
That said, there is only one conclusion possible (using common logical sense and a bit of linguistic knowledge): simple substitition fails.
However there is still hope that the text is meaningful but another method has to be applied and it’s another story.
