I went ahead and published a book titled, "Voynich Manuscript Latin Translation".  I discuss my project in this video and at the end provide and easy Voynich decoding game.  Have a look and if you buy the book present your feedback here.  Thank you!

I found a word for a plant and it has similar looks for laserpitium.  The root properties are for flavoring and its and ancient Chinese remedy.



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Hi everyone,

Because we don't know what the red weirdos on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are, I wasn't sure whether to put this thread in the text, imagery or marginalia sections, so I am posting it here.

I'm starting this thread so we can share our views about these, because whatever they are, they seem important, since they are on the very first page and have been made so very noticeable by the author.

Also, it seems that the one on the upper right side of the page has received rather less attention than the other two, although to me it might just be the most interesting one, because of its position and because it doesn't bear much similarity to the other two.

Here's a page made by Knox, which provides quite a few comparisons as well as links to various sites where they have been discussed in the past:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That was two years ago...

I'm curious to hear what views the forum members may have about what the weirdos are or look like, and whether perhaps we might gather any new insight into them.

Any thoughts?

Hello,

I have published the app "VoynichTextGenerator" for iOS. The App is available via the Apple app store (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

The app illustrates my hypothesis about the Voynich manuscript. With this app it is possible to generate text with features similar to that of the VMS.

The text generation algorithm works in two main steps. The first step is to choose a source word and the second step is to modify the selected word.

There are three different ways for modifying a source word.

The first method is to replace a ligature or glyph with a similar one. I will demonstrate this with 'chol' as example. The word 'chol' consists of a ligature 'ch' and a ligature 'ol'. It is possible to modify both ligatures. By changing 'ch' into 'sh', a new word 'shol' would be generated and by changing 'ol' into 'or' a new word 'chor' would be generated. It is also possible to change both ligatures at the same time to generate words like 'shor' or 'shal'.

The second modifying method is to add a prefix like 'l', 'o', 'd', 'ch' or 'q'. For adding a prefix in front of another prefix some special rules exist: If for instance a prefix 'l' or 'o' is added in front of the glyphs 'ch' or 'd', these glyphs in seven out of ten cases change into a gallow glyph. This way a prefix 'o' added to a source word 'chol' would result in words like 'okol', 'otol' or 'ochol'.

The third method is to combine two short words for generating a new word. For instance 'chol' could be combined with 'daiin' to generate a word 'cholkaiin' or 'choldaiin'. For glyph sequences containing only two glyphs it is also possible to combine the sequence with itself. For instance it is possible to combine two 'ol' words in order to generate a self-similar word 'olol'.

Torsten Timm
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Before I knew the actual remedies of Water Lily, I found words and phrases within the folio 2v that made me search out the internet its 
purpose for the words I found.  To my amazement the stalk of water lilies treats pus from wounds and soars.




You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Sometime after Voynich's death Theodore Petersen got a set of photostats of the Voynich MS to work with. In 1935 he wrote to E.L.Voynich (ELV) that there seemed to be some folios missing in his copy, and could he please get copies of folios 59r to 66v.
She answered that this was not entirely possible, because folios 59 to 64 were actually missing in the MS.
Petersen then pointed out that in Newbold's book there was a list of missing folios which did *not* include this range.
This prompted ELV and Anne Nill to search, and they reported that somewhere in Voynich's correspondence there was a collation of the MS that equally did not include these folios.

The same discrepancy was noted again in one of the modern Voynich MS fora, and again the conclusion was that Newbold had probably made a mistake. The correspondence of the 1930's isn't accessible online, so largely unknown.

The case is really settled by a codicological observation made by conservators looking at the MS in November 2014, namely that it would have been impossible to remove such a stack of bifolios from the MS without compromising the stability of the book. The present stitching (which is centuries old) was certainly made with the folios already missing.


So, one point settled, Newbold's table was wrong.

But it still leaves some interesting questions.
Note that the folio numbers have been written on the MS with the foldouts completely folded in, which causes them to appear in several cases on the verso side of the folios. It looks as if this foliation was added to the bound codex. (But this is not necessarily so).

Whoever added the folio numbers must have known that there was a gap of exacly 3 bifolios between 58 and 65. The number 3 is not at all logical, as it makes it the first quire in the MS that does not have 4 but 5 bifolios.
It could not have been a guess. (Most of the other missing folio numbers could have been guesses).
There is really no other option than that the now missing  folios were there for him to see (and probably add his foliation).

All of this means that the folio numbers were added *before* the MS was bound in its present form.

Now onto speculation.....

Were the numbers added to a bound codex, or to a loose pile of leaves? That second option doesn't seem sensible for several reasons, for example the above-mentioned point that the numbers were added on the foldouts when they were folded in.

Now if the MS was already bound before, while the presently missing pages were still there, in this earlier binding the folios were equally in the wrong order, as far as we can tell from all the evidence.
That would mean that the MS could have been (re-)bound even three times....

If we don't like that idea, an alternative is that the foliation was added right at the time of the first binding of the MS, while the correct page order was already unknown, and several of the folios were removed at the last minute.
While that seems a bit contrived, this largely fits the description of one of the books in Rudolf's Kunstkammer catalogue, which says in my tentative translation:

In folio, a philosophical old handwritten book (or written in old style) with illustrations, and a copy written on parchment  of (by?) Mathes Dörrer, unbound, and not fully collated, and of which Mr. Haydn has removed a few leaves by order of his majesty

Like I said, this is speculation. What is certain is that the foliator must have known that folios 59-64 (and 109-110) existed, and the foliation was added before the present binding.

The Voynich Manuscript was found in Villa Mondragone by Wilfrid Voynich in 1912. For years it was held by many people and only the author new of its contents. The Voynich glyph's is a cipher likened to the proportion of Mt. Everest. It's complicated structure has had many go to their death beds with out one insight into it. 


Now realizing that carbon dating is not perfect and the test done on its vellum suggests a time period of the early 15th century maybe wrong according to my cipher.

My proposal which is backed up by a Latin cipher states June 25, 1111 regarding Folio 67r2'; known as the astrology wheel. Using my cipher without the capital gallows and slanted backslash glyph's, I produced a cipher which came up with a date of January 5, 1111 for folio 1r.

Please go over the links and video and post your thought.  Also my cipher does not include the back slashes and Gallows.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

following on from my other post on the 'medieval carpenter' You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I'd like to open another thread closely related to that and the mermaid one. I deliberately didn't add it to the mermaid discussion (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) as I would like to draw the attention to the animals in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and not the mermaid/woman-fish hybrid.

Have a look at the animals in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. bottom right and compare with the image of folio 300v (The Hague, RMMW, 10 A 11, c.1475) in the attachment. I think the animals show a close resemblance even though I wouldn't dare an exact identification of the animals involved, however the principle looks convincing to me (and it is about animals in general and not particular ones)

f300v displays Adam and Eve (twice) which is described in more details in secondary interviews/blogs linked from the attached source . I aim to summarise these soon (if I get the feel and feedback that this is worthwhile and I am not completely on the wrong track).

How does the Mermaid/woman-fish hybrid fit in? As job found the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.with a woman emerging from a fish (the latin inscription next to it says 'et homo natus in piscibus') this is also about human evolution, so would fit the assumption of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. displaying the joint human & animal evolution...?

With the description of general evolution and the emergence of humans and animals from the -green coloured- Earth in both instances, another common point with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is debatable. The green, 'watery' base in both instances could display the evolutionary, 'swamp'-like (back)ground (much later a perfectly fitting German word would describe this as 'Ursuppe').

Again, any comments are much appreciated.

Attached Files

  Animal and human genesis.pdf (Size: 113.34 KB / Downloads: 41)

I was looking at the man (bottom left) in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and was puzzled by the detail (hidden underneath the green colour) on what the man is leaning on. I thought of a wooden beam and didn't find a real full equivalent in any manuscript. I found some images that I vaguely associate with the details (see attachment).
What do people think? Is medieval carpentry completely wrong and/or do I miss something obvious?
Thanks for any comments in advance.

Attached Files

  medieval carpenter?.pdf (Size: 85.48 KB / Downloads: 47)

Hello folks.

I thought I'd offer something different...a glyph word story.

It may not mean anything to you. Maybe it will. You decide. Maybe it is just a story.


                                    First Glyph Words

Here's how to read your first words in the Voynich Manuscript in the glyph text.

Not deconstruct - read.

There aren't many that read rather than deconstruct.

Turn to folio 16r. Look at the second line of text.

The EVA = ychykchy glyphs at the start of the line, do you see them?

Good.

They read, in English, hshesh (with a long e). That's how hashish is still, after a thousand years, sounded in some areas of the world.

Look at the plant image on the page.

That's a pot plant.

And there aren't many likelier repeated words to be expected on a page with an image of a pot plant with the same glyph/letter/sound at both ends and in the middle - and another glyph/letter/sound, the EVA = ch, sounded as s, in exactly the two expected places.

Okay, you say, you don't believe it.

Wait a minute...repeated?

Go to the last glyphs at the end of the third line from the end in the third paragraph on the page.

They're the same glyphs in line 2 of the first paragraph.

It's hshesh, again.

Now you have read your second word in the VMS.

Those of you that can do such things with your magic computer gizmos report back how many times this combination of glyphs in this order are repeated in the VMS, please.

I don't know, but don't think it is very many.

Look at the plant image again. Go find or email anyone you know that has ever grown pot and ask that person what the image of the plant on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is.

They'll tell you,

"That's a pot plant."

Now you've read the word twice and you've looked at the plant image twice or thrice and you say, no, you're still not convinced.

Okay.

On the next to last line on the page, the first glyphs read EVA = dychokchy shcthy.

This is where I ask you to bear with me for a bit. I think the EVA = o glyph should have a downstroke to make it into an EVA = y glyph. This is possibly because the downstroke was omitted through scribal error or because the author didn't want the same obvious progression of glyphs found at three places on such a brief page.

Whatever.

If you will allow me this small addition, the text reads ahshesh i(ng)h (with a long e). (I think the EVA = y at the end of the second word makes the glyph before it have a long sound so maybe the EVA = shcthy is sounded as ieen rather than the normal i(ng)h).

This word may be a Fifteenth Century phonetic equivalent of ahashishieen (assassins in modern English) - the fanatic followers of The Old Man of the Mountain in Syria from the early Crusader stories brought back by returning Crusaders and also later in Marco Polo's travelogue in the Thirteenth Century. They reportedly (and arguably) got their name from being hashish eaters, the meaning of ahashisheen.

That's your third word.

That's enough. I've strained your credulity enough for one day.

Go read two or three of the Old Man of the Mountain stories. Some go way, way back. Read Marco Polo's account. And/or the Bishop of Acre's.

You have read your first glyph words.

That's the end of my little story for today.

I hope you liked it.

It's a true story.

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee