A number of people have suggested that the VMS might be in some Chinese language.

I think it is unlikely that this is so, but I am still curious to know what people might think.

The manuscript was written by at least three people, possibly five. And who were they writing for? For themselves, or for other Chinese? Could there really have been that many of them in the whole of Europe, in the time of the manuscript, when trade routes were not that well established, to justify writing in that language? But also why invent a new alphabet when they could have just written in the Chinese script which hardly any European would have been able to read?

There is also a problem with any language that uses tones for meaning, as highlighted nicely in

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

The question is two-fold. Where is the word 'aberil' found and wherefore, for what reason, was it used to name the month of April, twice in the VMs Zodiac sequence? 

Where is it found? Nothing relevant on Google.

'Aberil' is apparently one of several variant words that are found in various languages. April is usually found on a calendar and the "ebooks" reference contains a number of liturgical calendars, which can be sorted by language groups. In the German group, the overwhelming preference is for "Aprilis" [Latin] or an abbreviation. In the French language group, the preference is for "Avril".

The only other viable alternative so far is the Germanic-group use of "Abrell" in 1540 Appenzell.

In a ninja search, back in 2019, Anton posted a reference that connects "Aberil" with the Swiss canton of Glarus - with no further info.

Is there more on this?

This work approaches the Voynich manuscript from a fresh angle—by applying small-scale character-level GPT models to its transliterated text. Instead of attempting direct decipherment or semantic interpretation, the focus is on investigating the internal structure and statistical patterns embedded in the glyph sequences.
By training models on different sections of the manuscript using a simplified and consistent transliteration system, this study probes how well a transformer-based language model can learn and predict the character sequences. The results provide compelling evidence that the text is far from random, showing meaningful structural regularities that a machine can capture with relatively low uncertainty.
This computational perspective offers a complementary lens to traditional Voynich research, suggesting that the manuscript’s mysterious text may follow underlying syntactic or generative rules—even if their semantic content remains unknown. It is an invitation to consider the manuscript as a linguistic system in its own right, accessible to modern machine learning tools, and to explore new paths for understanding its secrets.

Objective
The aim of this project is to explore the internal structure of the Voynich manuscript by training a small GPT model on its transliterated text. Using the Courrier transliteration, which offers a simplified and consistent representation of Voynichese glyphs, the goal is to test how well a transformer model can learn and predict character sequences within this mysterious and undeciphered corpus.

• A large vocabulary size (~15,000+ unique tokens).
  
• Very sparse and repetitive training data per token.
  
• Increased perplexity and unstable loss curves.
  

• Have a much smaller and denser vocabulary.
  
• Perform well with limited data.
  
• Naturally capture the morphological regularities of Voynichese.
  

• Train section-specific models (e.g., cosmological, recipes).
  
• Cluster generated tokens morphologically.
  
• Compare synthetic Voynichese to natural languages.
  
• Test statistical properties against controlled glossolalia or cipher texts.
  

(08-06-2025, 01:44 PM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, that's the main question for me, because we already know about a lot of regularity from curve-line systems, slot grammars, etc. These approaches have explicit simple rules that are easy to analyze and compare, as opposed to black-box GPT models.

Without some metric that shows that a GPT based approach identifies structures beyond already identified with previous methods, it's hard for me to see if the GPT based approach is of any use at all.

• ✅ 96.74% of the generated words match the slot grammar rules
  
• ✅ 95.5% of the total set correspond to real EVA words from the corpus
  
• ⚠️ 100% of the words have valid final glifs and no invalid double letters (so these two conditions have been learnt 100%)
  

(08-06-2025, 05:44 PM)davidma wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-06-2025, 03:39 PM)quimqu wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The high percentage of conformity suggests that the generation process is strongly guided by structural constraints similar to those observed in actual Voynichese. While not all words match real entries from the manuscript, most invented forms remain within plausible morpho-phonological boundaries defined by the slot grammar. This supports the idea that the model is not producing random noise, but instead approximates a coherent internal system—whether artificial or natural.

Could you in theory test for non-conforming words already in the VM? Or i guess measure how much they break the internal rules? I wonder if it could be interesting to see where these pop up in the VM, if they are predominant in "labelese" or maybe in certain sections? Or certain scribes? To my knowledge this hasnt been done yet but I am probably wrong.

• Compute the average loss per folio, showing how predictable the text is in different sections.
  
• Visualize this data as a heatmap, coloring folios by their average word loss.
  

• Highlighting words or regions where the model struggles most.
  
• Investigating whether these “high-loss” zones correlate with labelese, specific sections, or particular scribes (if metadata is available).
  
• Zooming in on the individual words the model finds most anomalous, and seeing their frequency and distribution.
  

ol is the most common two letter vord in the Voynich Manuscript.  Since "io" is a name for a Myth then it would not rank high in a frequency list.  If you run a frequency analysis o is the most common letter in the Voynich Manuscript.  While i the letter in Latin is the most common.  The letter 
"o" for Latin is the 8th most common letter.  l is the 7th most common letter in voynich.  So I humbly submit this could ol be the vord for "io" in Latin.


Io was the love interest of Zeus.  Could the myth of Io be in the pages of the Voynich Manuscript?

The deadline for submitting presentations for Voynich Manuscript Day, to be held on 3 August, has passed. However, we still have room for 2 ca. 30-minute presentations, so the deadline is extended to july 31st. Don't hesitate to contact me with proposals or questions!

Additionally, we are trying something new this year. I will hereby post six 10-minute time slots (all in CEST). Claim one in this thread and it's yours, to do or present anything Voynich-related you like.

• 13:00
  
• 13:10
  
• 13:20
  
• 14:00
  
• 14:10
  
• 14:20
  

I think the time has come to say something of my thoughts of the single leg gallows characters. These being  f p .

Within the manuscript gallows characters are seen to be written tall in some places and short in others. Here is part of f106v.

   


Page first lines and paragraph first lines where the line above has ended early seem to be the places where gallow characters are written tall. Or where a line slopes and creates a gap above. These are places where there is room to extend upwards. You can see this clearly in f111v. Where space is limited  t k can easily be written short, and often so. But not  f p . They cannot easily be written short because they need more room for the backwards line. So this explains why they don’t appear often within a paragraph of packed text. The authors avoid using them there. In a number of occasions where they do come mid-paragraph they appear deformed or collide with neighouring words.

   
   


Here also ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )  tchedarchy fchosaiin polaiin polkeeey was written tall, but the line sloped too much and the author then added an extra line  sairy ore daiindy ytam  to fill the gap.

   


The authors do like to write  f p with a downward swing at the end of the backward line. So whenever they come after another character they need extra height to avoid a clash.

   


This might possibly be the explanation why f p often appear as the first character in a word, where they can be written freely without being obstructed by any leading character. When they come as the first character of a paragraph first word they are often elaborately fashioned. It might just be a fad of the authors, to want to start a paragraph with the wiggliest possible character.

So  f p are being used where it is convenient, and not according to any rule or method, neither linguistic, grammatic, cypheric nor cryptographic. They cannot be separate letters in some language alphabet. The close similarity in the appearance of f p k t suggests that  f and  p might be nothing more than stylised variants of the more commoner double leg gallows. No particular purpose for them. Just a preference of the authors for writing them that way.

After Koen's marvelous work on Alpha vs. Beta plants I wondered if we can correlate scribal hands as identified by Lisa Fagin Davis to other imagery throughout the manuscript. The first obvious choice is nymphs andd faces in general which are abundantly drawn by scribal hand #2 ('balneological section') and #4 (Zodiac / Astronomy). But there are also a few figures on one page doubtfully attributed to hand #1 ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) and two marginalia-associated drawings on pages attributed to scribal hand #3 ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) and hand #5 ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ).

Scribal hand #1 - Roundel
Not much from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which is not even definitely attributed to scribal hand #1 . There are four figures, two of which are shown from behind. There is only one other instance of a figure drawn from behind on f86v4 which Lisa attributes to scribal hand 2. The figures are large but rather crudely drawn. Eyes are slightly downward-curved lines.
   


Scribal hand #1 - Pharma
In the root section we find a few faces.
A number of small ones with few features on f89r1 . They show strong resemblance to the small astro faces associated with scribal hand #4
   

And a single one in f101v2 . It looks quite unique, round with pointy nose and best resembles the male zodiac figures associated with scribal hand #4
   


Scribal hand #2 - Plants
One plant, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shofs large faces in roots. These have somewhat c-shaped but more complex eyes and an unique '<' -shaped mouth but overall I think the best match are the astro-faces of scribal hand #4.
   


Scribal hand #2 - Balneological
Arguably some of the best drawn figures though quality varies somewhat. Notably crisp dark lines. The eyes are mostly but not always c-shaped , the open end pointing inward. Sometimes loops. This appears to be a key feature of figures associated with scribal hand #2.The nymphs are also fairly large.
   
   


Scribal hand #2 - Rosette backside
The 4 persons on f85r2 and f86v4 show a very strong resemblance and are obviously drawn in the same style. Puffy cheeks. One figure is shown from the side, one from the  back. Only one has c-shaped eyes.
   
   

f68v3 has two figures. One has clear c-shaped eyes, the other an odd unique polygonal face and nose
   


Scribal hand #4 - Rosette
The rosette foldout shows two strongly fades suns in the corner that appear similar in style to the other large astro faces by scribal hand #4. The lower sun has darker c-shaped eyes that could be amended.
   


Scribal hand #4 - Astro
We see a number of faces on celestial bodies that have an unique style. The large ones have more complex eyes, the mouth is sometimes represented by two parallel lines. Noses are often broad and round in large faces, rectangular in the small ones of celestial bodies.
   
   
   
   


Scribal hand #4 - Zodiac
This is where things get interesting! We have two zodiac pages in Q10: f70v2 and f70v1
The drawings are some of the best Nymphs in the manuscript. They are lifelike, in different poses and expressions standing in their fancy barrels. Eyes take different form. c-shapes are rare but look natural and not like amendments
   
   

Q11 Zodiac signs show a noticeable decline. The figures become much more static, also faded. The naked nymphs appear in the same poses as the ones from the balneological sections but are overall poorly drawn. Unambiguously c-shaped eyes are absent. Eyes are mostly dots or lines. The style is more or less consistent while quality varies. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. still shows some well- drawn figures and a lot of males in red with caps.
   

The foldout You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , f72r1 , f72r2 , f72r3 has a very similar style of crisp lines but drawing quality and paint job is noticeably worse. Ink becomes faded and there are some dark lines that look like amendments.
   

f72v1 has broader lines and some obvious amendments on the nymphs on top (crown, eyes). But no c-shaped eyes anywhere.
   

f72v3 , f72v2 shows massive fading with no obvious amendments in Leo, excapt maybe breasts. In Virgo, Virgo herself has c-eyes but they also look like they were made with dark ink.
   

Q12 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. stylistically match the previous pages but less faded.
These 2 pages are the only ones in the astro section where we see clear c-shaped eyes - and they have been amended in darker ink. Just like hair/headdressses on the previous page. All nymphs in faded original ink have dot or line eyes. But also amended eyes can be dots or lines.
   
   


Marginalia #1
A single drawing associated with marginalia text on a page attributed to schribal hand #5.
Not much can be discerned from the face but the style looks different from the other marginalia drawing and more like the zodiac figures.
   


Marginalia #2
Another single figure on the last page associated to marginalia, the quire attributed to scribal hand #3 . The naked nymph appears quite well drawn and organic and in an unique style distinct from other nymphs in the manuscript.
   


Now what to make of all this?
In my opinion the drawing style correlates better with topics or even quires and pages than scribal hands. Furthermore, despite the differences, the style is fairly consistent and more a continuum than distinct chunks. This matches our experience from the plants.

Conclusio - looking at all the intermediates and the overall consistency of style, I propose that scribal hands mark periods in the development of an individual rather than distinct persons. I do not find the hypothesis that at least 5 people worked together in creating those highly similar yet subtly distinct images parsimonious. Obviously all the drawings are amateurish. Not necessarily bad but not the work of professionals. And one of the hallmarks of a good artist is achieving consistency. Overall the style across scribal hands is fairly consistent - too consistent to be the work of several untrained individuals. But this is my layman's opinion. I am not a paleographer.

Hi, it has been brought to my attention that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from 1999--2004 were not available, Bog knows since when.  Sorry, it was just a broken symbolic link in my messy website.  They should be all back again.  

All the best, --jorge

Hi everyone,

I would like to share the results of a recent research project on the Voynich Manuscript that we have been developing for several months.

The core idea was to approach the manuscript as a **structurally encoded text** — not an artificial language, but a Latin-based text using an alchemical-ritual lexicon and grammar.

Here is what we found:

✅ The manuscript follows **Latin SVO grammar**
✅ The "unknown terms" match known **alchemical and ritual terms** from 15th century sources
✅ We constructed a **complete decoding key** and **glossary** covering \~95% of the manuscript
✅ Structural match is particularly strong with the corpus of the *Schola secreta sapientiae* (Florence, 15th c., Abraham ben Simeon school)

The full research article is now available on my website:

? Insert your URL here — e.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The article includes:

✅ Detailed methodology
✅ Full transliteration table
✅ Grammatical model
✅ Glossary with sources
✅ Appendices with references
✅ Example translations from the manuscript

I hope this work can contribute to ongoing discussions and further research — and I would very much welcome feedback from the community here!

Thank you)))

(03-06-2025, 04:47 PM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.many years later another person (the "Retracer") went through the manuscript, retracing many faded glyphs and figure details in a distinctive very dark ink.  He may have been the same who retraced some lines of page f67r2 with red ink. But this Retracer also added some fancy details that apparently were not in the original (such as the crowns and multi-lobed "shower caps" on some of the Zodiac nymphs, e.g. the outer one at 05:30 on Scorpio).