Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"a historical" vs "an historical"

Dear Mr. Pelling,

I beg to differ with regard to your recent reverts: Hence "an" may be seen in such phrases as "an historic", "an heroic", "an hôtel of excellence", in both British and American usage.[9] Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage allows "both a and an are used in writing a historic an historic".[10] See A and an. -- Syzygy (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elmar, both "a" and "an" can indeed be used, but given that "a historical" is so close to "ahistorical" I prefer to use the "an" version. Anyway, I put "an historical" into the page first, so my original choice of two equals should stand. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpelling (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

When the initial syllable with 'h' is unstressed, then it is always correct to drop the 'h' sound and use 'an'. That sounds better and is grammatically correct. Varlaam (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Utter piffle. People simply do not talk like that. See for example Fowler's Modern English Usage for a fuller discussion. 91.107.168.205 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not utter piffle. I for one certainly do talk like that, as do many other moderately educated middle-aged Britons. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote (above) in 2010, both 'a' and 'an' are technically correct: a/an historian, a/an hotelier, a/an hysterical punchline, a/an hereditary condition, etc. Personally, I prefer "an" in "an historical" and "an historic" because "ahistoric" and "ahistorical" are also words (even if one of them is a little archaic). But feel free to make your own choices in this, I'm not your mother. ;-) Nickpelling (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Periodic table of typefaces

Probably, it's some kind of pseudo-random code. [1] Denis Tarasov (talk)

Looks like a song book to me. This person was writing sounds, not words. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible source of article expansion

A good summary article by Klaus Schmeh was just published in The Skeptical Inquirer, January/February 2011 issue. It will probably be available online here in six months or so, but should be available now from any good library. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Armenian alphabet....

like the Voynich alphabet has a variety of large Capital "P" shaped letters of varying complexity, some of them struck through.

Like the Voynich alphabet, Armenian has a variety of "2" and "ʔ" shaped letters, with and without loopy bits.

Like the Voynich alphabet, Armenian has several "&" or "$" shaped letters.

Armenian also has a variety of letters that have a similar form to "mmm", "uuu" and "www" (in their handwritten form). These, as in Voynich, make up the greater part of the script, with taller loopy letters sticking up above them and a few "g"ish and "y"ish letters projecting downward.

Both Armenian and Voynich have "O", and letters of similar form to "j", and "y" in their handwritten forms as well as "ɑ", "ŋ" and "ʒ".

Neither Armenian or Voynich have letters that resemble A, B, C, D, H, K, R, T, X.

Armenian shows a great deal of variation between different writers with some making their larger letters with far more loops and curlicues than others. However, a page of Armenian has a somewhat monotonous character, because of the proliferation of mmm and uuu.

Just thought you'd like to know.....

Amandajm (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's time to restructure this whole page?

Though I've been researching and writing about the Voynich Manuscript for just about a decade now, I haven't been recommending the Wikipedia Voynich page for quite a few years, even though it normally appears at the top of just about any Voynich-related search results. I think it's fair to say that somewhere along the line, the page got swamped by interminable discussion of possibilities to the great detriment of all the factualities involved. Really, none but the most doggedly determined would find the page a useful introduction to the VMs in its current form.

This is neither to say that individual topics covered here are not interesting in their own right, nor to suggest that all this accumulated hard work should be deleted. Rather, I think that the overlong Voynich Wikipedia entry should now be split into several individual sub-pages: this is a normal thing in the Wikipedia lifetime of complex topics.

The key issue, of course, would be how best to do this splitting. My proposal is that the main page should be devoted solely to evidence and facts, with detailed discussion of its history/provenance, possible authorship, and possible language moved to their own individual pages, mirroring the current section arrangement.

• Voynich Manuscript
• Voynich Manuscript - History
• Voynich Manuscript - Authorship
• Voynich Manuscript - Language

What do you think? Nickpelling (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I support this (although I'm not available to do any of the actual work). Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, the article might be overlong, but splitting it appears to have its own problems. The interwined issues are part of what makes the manuscript interesting. Glrx (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose In its current state the article isn't really that long at all - it's only 55 kB in total (see also Wikipedia:Article size). Perhaps it could be reorganised to improve flow and readability? The lead could also be expanded if necessary. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia Article Size page gives a 30K-to-50K maximum size guideline which this has already passed. Furthermore, the contents of most of the Voynich page's sections have ended up so heavily condensed that they are not really useful. Hence I'd agree that the lead (and in fact most of the rest of the text) should be expanded for readability (perhaps even doubling in size), but I think this would only make sense as part of a broader restructuring. Nickpelling (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't really have an opinion on whether the article should be split, but I support and commend any effort to restructure the article into sections like this, separating fact from speculation (or objective from subjective, as you phrased it earlier). I watched the documentary last night and came to this page hoping to see summaries of what further research has been done since the carbon dating. The only datum I gleaned was that there was also a study about the ink confirming the dating. Reviewing some of this talk page also revealed subsequent analysis not included in the article. I understand that the "official paper" regarding the carbon dating has not yet been published, but surely it would be reasonable to integrate the information into the article, even if you are citing "only" the documentary. In discussing the many theories, it would be helpful to include references where appropriate to the carbon dating as the highest evidence when "disproving" something rather that other people's interpretations of "other internal evidence" being listed as a clincher argument. So overall, I think this article could be improved substantially by restructuring (saving the "splitting" discussion for later perhaps?) and I will even try to help if there's anything I can do besides proofread and offer opinions from a layman's perspective. Thanks for your hard work! Laura1822 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup, this is basically my point - that countless thousands of people (such as Laura1822) come to this page to find out more about the Voynich Manuscript, only to find a loosely-structured heap of speculation. Perhaps each section should be split into three: Facts (what it is), Parallels/Similarities (what it evokes), Theories (what it suggests)? Nickpelling (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I will support any logical structure. Just pick one and go.  :-) Laura1822 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

University of Arizona experts determine age of book 'nobody can read'

Editors of this article, take notice of the following news: University of Arizona experts determine age of book 'nobody can read' Pmronchi (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding more detail about past attempts and claims of decoding

I was reading the German version of this article, and they have a nice one or two paragraph summary of some of the more prominent Voynich scholars and their theories. It would be good to have some more information on these theories on the English page. My best argument for this is because some (especially older) books refer to these theories, and in the case of the book I was reading about 10 minutes ago (written in 1995), claimed that it "was deciphered in the 1940s by Joseph Martin Feely." There is no mention of Feely on this Wikipedia article, even though someone besides himself thought he had deciphered it. smIsle (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the two declassified NSA documents?

They are not mentioned here.

NSA Technical Journal

The Voynich Manuscript: "The Most Mysterious Manuscript in the World" - Summer 1967 - Vol. XII, No. 3 and The Voynich Manuscript Revisited - Summer 1976 - Vol. XXI, No. 3

The second one seems to have made some headway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.226.5 (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention required

I am not expert and I have never heard of this manuscript, but when I happened to stumble across this page I did not feel convinced at all by the opening and I thought it was a case of misinformed high-school edits. For one, at the resolution present on the opening the exotic script looked like regular secretary hand to me (which most contemporary people find illegible), the word mediaeval is used for the 15th century and facts are repeated in the introduction. The first paragraph about the script is poorly phrased, there may be 21-26 letters but Gutenberg's 42-line bible had 290 unique glyphs (typography killed them with time); furthermore, albeit not as common as Semitic scripts, the latin alphabet scripts used to have a lot of variability in lettering depending on the position, r-rotunda in blackletter and internal beta in Greek in addition to the two listed, not to mention cursive and semicursive scripts. These details make me think that this article may have gone into disrepair, so could someone give it a shake? --Squidonius (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you on some of these points, but I don't think there's anything wrong with using the word "medieval" for the 15th century. My understanding is that the Middle Ages include the 1400s. Chillowack (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The 15th century is late medieval and early Renaissance and early modern simultaneously, it just depends where (say, within Europe) and when (within that century) you happen to be talking about. Of course, in the case of the Voynich, pinning those things down is the issue... so we can't yet tell which is right. Oh, and strictly speaking, it should only be called a "manuscript" if it was made before 1450 (as Wilfrid Voynich firmly believed), otherwise it should be a "handwritten early modern document". Just so you know! ;-) Nickpelling (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

About the removal of the external link to: "Inside the Voynich manuscript" by Henry Berg (bravado.no)

External links have been discussed on this page before and this is my introduction to such a discussion. The question is why new "instrumental links" are kept, but my "human link" is removed (by Nick Pelling). The WP Voynich page is not a private site, it is basically each individual contributer who must decide what is an appropriate link or not... on the other hand this could of course bring about a discussion... like this one.

My article is not meant to be machine read, it's written for humans. Machine reading is based on history, knowing all the facts, and if some area of the manuscript has been deciphered a couple of times, unsuccessfully, then this area is tagged as unbreakable. No new attempts are welcomed (which in 2011 seems to leave two possibilities: The hoax theory or a brute-force attack). Any attempt to search for new inspiration is easily ridiculed, only computer engineers equipped with OCR software (or a similar approach incapable of reflecting the diversity of the manuscript) seems to be taken seriously, and if this brute-force attack does not succeed then the manuscript is a hoax. But have these people really had a look at the manuscript itself? On about 130 pages I find plants, but as WP states: "None of the plants depicted are unambiguously identifiable", which is quite absurd. There are numerous bathing nymphs in combinations with tubes (or are they veins?), absurd again. Human faces showing up in the roots of plants? If we transfer this reference to the text area, what should we then expect? Something very unexpected?

The fact is that my human approach, the link to my article involving something very unexpected, was deleted.

This is not a forum but a discussion page to discuss the shaping of the Voynich page. I've used this space to defend my point of view, I think that this page should include a link to my article. The question seems to be: Would you have removed this "unexpected" link?

If this entry does not generate any discussion I will personally put the link back in a while or two. Henry Berg (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds very much as if you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own original research. This is not permitted. LadyofShalott 00:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of link. Not only does the link appear to be original research, but your adding it to the article could run into conflict of interest problems. The link could constitute WP:ADVERTising. Usually external links provide content that editors haven't yet added to the article. WP generally reports on information contained in reliable sources. A self-published work or blog is generally not a reliable source. Consequently, the material would not be added unless it was published in other (reliable) sources. Glrx (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Henry, while I browsed over your paper and think it's most interesting and contributes to VM research, WP has a fairly strict policy regarding external links. WP isn't meant to be a collection of links or a forum for ongoing research, but a place to represent "state-of-the-art" on any topic. Which means that unless your original results are "officially" sacntioned (by the research community) and have become canon, they're considered speculative, and hence have no place in WP. (It isn't about right or wrong. My own blog about the Voynich isn't mentioned in WP either, and wouldn't deserve to be.) I suggest you bring your paper to attention through other means (dmoz is one channel, the Voynich Mailing List [2] is another, and I'd be happy to link to your work from my blog; if you're interested, drop me a line on my talk page), but at the moment WP simply isn't the right spot for it. -- Syzygy (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

People on the street-theories

Maybe a section with non-experts theories would be nice? Personally I think some of the so called "astronomical" images looks more like plant cells to me. It could be a way to try to describe the life of plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.84.82 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. There are so many nutcases out there, I'm afraid this would clutter the article and make it more difficult to extract the preciously little reliable information we have... --Syzygy (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed too bad that wikipedia doesn't have a forum for non-scientific conversations specific to pages. Kogi123 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion about this manuscript is that this script was in 90% made to be a fake. The first probable known possessor of this script - Emperor Rudolf II who lived most likely a century after it's creation - if he had this script - he didn't understand it just as we can't now, nevertheless he paid a lot of money for it. I would say that this script was made to become a very pretty fake - and the writing is an argument towards this theory of mine (also many other things). A pretty and mysterious manuscript could have gained (and actually gained if the letter is correct) very big prices on market, thus it was certainly worth it to spend the time and make it. Kogi123 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea that this manuscript contains information about New World things, because that suggests that it is a copy of a New World manuscript predating the destruction of the New World libraries. The possibilities would then be delightful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.188.25 (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

There are large sections of this article which appear to be simply unsourced speculation. The speculations are interesting, but probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. As a reminder, good practice is that every paragraph should have at least one source. I could add {{cn}} tags, but that would lead to major clutter since there are so few citations at the moment. Would anyone object to me (or someone else) just going in and doing some major cleanup? Or should we go the citation-needed route? --Elonka 22:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think clean-up would be better, I would rather see less content than more content with citation-needed tags, but that's just my opinion. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 22:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides, any material that anyone wants to re-add can easily be re-added if they do have a source for it! ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's sprawled into a awfully big page, and I suspect that the kindest thing to do would be to restructure it into 4 or 5 manageable pages (as I suggested above). Hence trying to clean it up as it is would perhaps be a bit too close to whipping a dead horse (not that I have either a whip or a thing against horses, live or dead). Nickpelling (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural impact

At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, I'd like to discuss the possibility of a "Cultural impact" section for this article. We don't need to go into detail about which webcomics the manuscript has or hasn't appeared in, but I do think it's worth noting that the manuscript is famous enough that it's been covered in popular culture. It has inspired webcomics, multiple novels, several books, and definitely captures the public imagination (as was noted recently when Voynich was brought up in most of the articles about the Copiale cipher). I think it's worth mentioning some of this public fascination, as long as it's done with neutrality and moderation. What do others think? --Elonka 02:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You've already seen my Big Fat List of Voynich Novels http://www.ciphermysteries.com/the-voynich-manuscript/big-fat-list-of-voynich-novels ? Given that the Wikipedia Voynich page is already 5x larger than it ought to be, the absence of a cultural impact section is currently one of its few saving graces. Please don't add one! Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the VMs got mentioned in a lot of the Copiale Cipher press specifically because Kevin Knight told various journalists that was what he was going on to solve now. Never mind that the Zodiac 340 cipher is apparently far closer to that kind of (homophonic) cipher than the VMs is! :-) Nickpelling (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like someone has introduced a Cultural Impact section. :-( Personally, I think it adds very little and the article is already 5x too large without it, so would vote that it be removed. Nickpelling (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Northern Italy?

Would whoever added the opening bit about "possibly from Northern Italy" kindly add a citation for this claim? (The citation that immediately follows the remark leads, not to a mention of Italy, but to an article about carbon-dating.) Either that, or explain why you believe Northern Italy to be a more probable place of origin than other locations. (It goes without saying that the fact that the manuscript was *found* in Italy says nothing about where it was *created*; and besides, it clearly passed through other countries [such as Bohemia] before winding up in Italy.)

I realize there is an illustration of a man wearing a Florentine hat in the manuscript; but this type of hat was presumably known and worn in other places than Florence. Without something more solid to back the statement up, I think having it in there might be more speculation than objective fact.

I know Nick Pelling has his pet theory about Italy and Italians, but as far as I can tell he's the only commentator who subscribes to this theory; so if it's Nick who's put in this bit about Northern Italy, I believe that would fall into the category of "original research." Chillowack (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on adding sources, I'll definitely put one there. To check yourself, see the new research in the 2011 video that's currently linked at the bottom of the article. --Elonka 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

People have been suggesting Northern Italy since about 1920. H.P.Kraus' (1962) "Catalogue 100" notes (p.41) "At first sight, the manuscript looks deceptively like certain late mediaeval herbals, such as they were made in Italy early in the XVth century." I suspect John Matthews Manly's 1931 article also mentions this, though I don't have a copy here to hand. Sergio Toresella (who has travelled the world examining Quattrocento herbals) is more specific, saying that the VMs' writing most closely resembles that found in Milanese herbals not long after 1450. Please be reassured that I'm far from the first to suggest this! Nickpelling (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

-- Answering this, the same documentary that presents de carbon dating says that the book have an image of a castle, with a type of architecture only existant in Northern Italy around 1400s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.33.183 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

typical of schozophrenic art?

In my experience as a doctor (and artist) dealing with psychiatric patients who do art therapy this work is not unlike some of the art produced by schizophrenics and those with certain personality traits. I infer from the quality and type of the Voynich ms that these were produced over a long period by someone with money and time on thier hands and a good education. Possibly they were the work of a nobleman's son (or daughter though less likely) who might have been considered very brilliant in youth but whose thoughts and actios then became disordered and incomprehensible, though to him they would have held an internal logic. Such a person might have been indulged and left alone to produce his work. A relative might have assembled them, hoping to find some 'meaning.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.229 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, can you point us at any published sources which might discuss the nature of art created by schizophrenics? Or even better, do you know of anyone in the medical community who has published a paper comparing schizophrenic art and the Voynich manuscript? --Elonka 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

there are many texts on 'outsider art' which discuss the work of the insane. One artist who springs immediately to mind is Wolfli. Check out the Wiki article on outsider art for example. I do not know of any comparing Voynich to known examples - maybe you could be the first. I recall an american artist Darger who spent years painting imaginary worlds in which children (often naked) fought battles with evil forces. Anyone discovering Wolfli's work or Darger's or Hunderwasser's work several hundred years afterwards might well conjecture that these works contain mysterious codes -but they do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.184.93 (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we will look into the topics of Outsider art, Adolf Wölfli, Henry Darger, and Friedensreich Hundertwasser to see if there is anything there which might be Voynich-relevant. If you do run across any Voynich-specific sources, please let us know! I did attend a talk at the NSA Cryptologic History Symposium recently where the topic was brought up that the entire Voynich manuscript may have simply been created by someone with schizophrenia. I'd like to include this information in the Wikipedia article, but of course, we need citations first, otherwise it would be original research! If you can locate any sources, that would be very helpful. --Elonka 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I further suggest, having looked at the evidence and 'cryptological' nature of this ms -that the only other logical possibility is that it was written by an extraterrestrial. Given the orders of magnitude difference in probability between that hypothesis and the above, I still come down on the side of mental illness. Lgh (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought for one horrible moment you were going to suggest it was written by an extraterrestrial with mental illness. Glad to know we can rule that possibility out. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, don't forget Le Livre Des Sauvages, which manages to blend cryptography with mental disturbance: http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2011/08/14/le-livre-des-sauvages Nickpelling (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The extraterrestrial idea was made tongue in cheek. However, having further examined some material written around the ms, I infer that maybe the crib used to generate the script was possibly the bible, seeing as it was the most easily obtained massif of info at the time that could be used as cryptological source matter for someone wishing to do so. I find suggestive that the number of pages approximates the number of books in the bible multiplied by four, though the number of books in the bible has altered several times. This may be a complete red herring, of course. Lgh (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above, the graphemes actually resemble handwritten forms of hebrew (for example the handwritten forms of Lamed and Shin) so the crib may be a Torah. A more productive Voynich alphabet than 101 may be had by assigning graphemes the hebrew letter most resembling it. Lgh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.229 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

having now examined an image: Quire 2:: F9V I note that on the third line down the fourth word in from the left (looks like "8am" is written higher - possibly so as not to obtrude on the word below. This implies the ms may have been written from the bottom up. It superficially resembles 14th C Sufi script but also Tibetan scripts from the 16 and 17oo's. Lgh. 203.217.59.229 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Philip Neal once suggested that certain pages (though not all, not by a long way) appeared to have been written in alternate lines, i.e. 1/3/5/7..../2/4/6/8.... It is surprisingly hard to make general statements about the Voynich! Nickpelling (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of dating methods?

What was used for dating C14 method? As far as I remember(a film on Planete) this was only a material from book. NOT the INK. And it was common falsification method to get the original paper, remove the text, or just blank pages with making new text on it. The ink is harder to make false copies - for e.g. Voynich rather don't had an original XIV century ink reserve...

What mean "found that much of the ink was added not long afterwards, confirming that the manuscript is an authentic medieval document". So what about other parts? Maybe the clue is to find the parts made at least near the date of creation, and parts made really after creation. Adding some ink to the original text could make nonsense, or something not to decipher easily.

The dating was performed on the vellum ("parchment" -- not exactly paper). You can't C14-date the ink, because C14 relies on organic compounds which aren't found in the ink. But chemical analyses have been performed on the ink which have confirmed that it's probable the ink was created in the 15th century along with the vellum. -- Syzygy (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, dating the inks would require scraping a lot of it off a single page, which is something that the Beinecke (quite rightly, I think) wouldn't be happy to allow. Also, the part about the ink being "added not long afterwards" has yet to be confirmed properly: personally, I suspect that not enough study has been done to enable "not long afterwards" to be properly quantified (a year? a decade? a century?) Nickpelling (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So thank You about comments. In my opinion it is hard to say now that we are really right, thinking that this is a real XV century text.

I've reworded the passage regarding the ink being added "not long afterwards" to make it clear that the McCrone Report doesn't actually make this claim. 82.132.218.227 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Radiation / wave ciphered text ?

Could You answer other question - was the whole book fully studied using modern techniques? Did somebody checked the alfa, beta and gamma radiation of this book/single pages? Or even radio/other waves which may behave in other way that most old books? It's maybe like science fiction - but who knows?

Also maybe the clue is not to look in UV, or check the pencil hidden text, but to use some light natural radiation sources to check this. Ok it maybe look as Sci-fiction on first look, but if the Vikings could use magnetic stones, without understanding magnetism like we now, why the medieval monk couldn't use some natural sources found somewhere? The bad point of my theory is that possibility of coding(or just making "magic" book, for people mass) something with radiation sources, which just mostly divided to much in centuries... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note WP:NOT#FORUM, the talk page is for discussing article changes, not to ask questions on the article's topic - that sort of conversation can be conducted on another website, not here. Kyteto (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The claims of Viekko Latvala of Finland

As history evolves, the Article needs to also. Consider Finland breaking news and how it works into the Article. "Mysterious Manuscript's Code Has Been Cracked, 'Prophet of God' Claims" http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/02/prophet-god-claims-solved-mystery-voynich-manuscript/ Can we see what comes of this? Where is the transcription? When is it appropriate to work anything into the article since everyone will be checking WP now for 'Voynich Manuscript'? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Latvala's claims are just the latest in a long series of claims that basically boil down to: "I've solved it, but no one else is clever/qualified/insightful enough to be able to understand my discoveries." As far as the Wikipedia article, I'd be tempted to add a sentence like, "Many (sometimes wildly speculative) solutions have been proposed over the last hundred years, but none have received support when subjected to independent verification." --Elonka 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I maintain a long (but still very incomplete) list of Voynich theories: http://www.ciphermysteries.com/the-voynich-manuscript/voynich-theories - I'll be adding Latvala's shortly... Nickpelling (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka's suggestion regarding a brief sentence or paragraph stating the existence of these theories. They don't deserve listing or mention, as there's dozens of claims and counter-claims.--Dmol (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. . . . For your interest, here is a clip, including part of his 'translation': "Latvala's business associate, Ari Ketola told FoxNews.com the meaning of the crazy characters he described as "sonic waves and vocal syllables." "The book is a life work and scientific publication of medicine that would be still useful today," Ketola said. "The writer was a scientist of plants, pharmacy, astrology and astronomy. It contains ... prophesy for some decades and hundreds of years ahead from the time it was created." In other words, the Voynich Manuscript -- which is currently held by Yale University's Beincke Rare Book and Manuscript Library in New Haven, Conn. -- is an herbological tome, something the writer used to keep track of plants and their uses for either scientific or medical purposes. And a prophecy. Latvala provided the following translation of plant 16152, which he said can be found today in Ethiopia:
"The name of the flower is Heart of Fire.
It makes the skin beautiful when made as an ointment.
The oil is pressed from the buds.
This ointment is used for the wrinkles.
Is suitable for the kidneys and the head,
as the flower prevents inflammations, is antibiotic.
Plant is 10 centimeters by its height.
It grows on hot and dry slants.
The plant is bright green by its color." . . ."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/02/prophet-god-claims-solved-mystery-voynich-manuscript/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that, but it still doesn't mean anything. Without a method, he could have quoted "Mary had a little lamb" or a passage from Moby Dick, and there's no way to refute it. Also, this reference to "Plant 16152" is highly suspicious. It may sound official, but again, doesn't mean anything. The Voynich pages have numbers which go up to 116, and there are hundreds of plant illustrations in the manuscript, but I've never heard of any being numbered by that method, and there definitely are not thousands of plants. So again, Latvala has just made a lot of vague assertions. Which page of the manuscript is this plant on? Which page number is he claiming to have deciphered/translated? Also, the terms "antibiotic" and "centimeters" are modern, so could not have been used in the 15th century. Further, if the page is describing a modern "flower in Ethiopia", which one, exactly, is it? Latvala says "Heart of Fire", but I'm unaware of any such flower, in Ethiopia or elsewhere. Plenty of other people have tried identifying the plants as well, but I've heard no mention of anything from Ethiopia there, either.[3] --Elonka 17:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that "Plant 16152" is a slightly mangled reference to the Beinecke's scan of Voynich page f40r, "1006152.sid", as discussed here: http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2011/12/03/voynich-manuscript-decrypted-by-finnish-prophet-of-god-via-fox-news PS: apparently, the guy's first name should be "Veikko", not "Viekko". Nickpelling (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Scripts

Anyone looked at old Armenian and Azerbaijani scripts? They superficially resemble the Voynich script. Did Basque once have its own script? The figures and words have an undeniably European look about them, but maybe the ms is just a bad copy of some non-european text. Lgh (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

MS 408

In looking through the Beinecke's website, they seem to be getting away from referring to the manuscript as "MS 408", and instead are simply calling it the "Voynich Manuscript" now. Indeed, on the Beinecke page here,[4] they don't refer to "408" at all. At their search page, typing "MS 408" brings up some (very interesting) Voynich-related items,[5] but I'm just not sure that it's accurate anymore to say that it's "formally referred to as Beinecke MS 408". Hence why I changed the lead to say "sometimes referred to". Or are there other sources I'm missing? In short, I'm not arguing that in the past it may have been referred to as MS 408, or the Roger Bacon Manuscript, Roger Bacon cipher, etc. But in current usage, "Voynich Manuscript" seems to be pretty standard, so I'd recommend that we adapt our lead to match. Perhaps better wording would be, "where its catalog number is MS 408"? --Elonka 16:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They probably do that to keep it high up in Google Search! Until such time as the Beinecke sells it, it will continue to be "Beinecke MS 408", that's its proper name. Interestingly, it is only called a manuscript because Wilfrid Voynich believed it to have been written by Roger Bacon, which would make it medieval: but if it turns out to have been written after 1450, it should technically be called an "early modern handwritten document" instead. Of course, the "Voynich Early Modern Handwritten Document" doesn't really have the same ring, does it? :-) Nickpelling (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did find a page on the Beinecke site referring to it as "MS 408", so I've added the source and tweaked the lead accordingly. Note that Google does show plenty of websites referring to "Beinecke MS 408", but as near as I can tell, this is informal usage -- there doesn't seem to be established usage in published sources that refer to it as "Beinecke MS 408" as opposed to "MS 408" (at least that I could find). Do you know of any? --Elonka 01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called "Beinecke MS 408" because that's how manuscripts are typically named: collection MS index. The reason Voynich researchers often call it by other names is simply because most are hobby historians and amateur cryptologists, adrift in a vast sea of unreliable online information: the point of the Wikipedia page is to give them the basic archival support to help them refer to it by its proper name. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I know how knowledgeable you are about things Voynich, and I almost hate to argue with you about this, but I'm just not seeing that term in the sources. I've checked every Voynich book and article that I have access to, and (with the exception of your own book) they all use the term "MS 408", not "Beinecke MS 408". The Wikipedia article needs to reflect what's in the sources. Now, in verbal conversations or personal correspondence, academics may well refer to the manuscript as Beinecke MS 408, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, unfortunately we need to stick to what's been printed. See WP:V. --Elonka 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, you're probably right, it's just that the world has many thousands of manuscripts numbered "MS 408" - the Voynich manuscript is merely the most famous of them. It's the same with your name: even though you have elonka.com, "Elonka" isn't your formal name. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise here? How about changing the sentence to say, "The Voynich manuscript was donated to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library in 1969, where it is formally referred to as "MS 408". In discussions, it is sometimes also referred to as "Beinecke MS 408"." Would that work? --Elonka 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still just plain wrong, but what use is a comb to a bald man? Go for it! =:-o Nickpelling (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nick. :/ Is there another compromise that you'd prefer? And anyway, if we later dig up sources that show that the manuscript is formally referred to as "Beinecke MS 408", it'll be easy enough to change it back! --Elonka 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tepenec signature

"... the handwriting is consistent with Tepenecz's name in other books that he owned."

"However, that writing does not match Jacobus's signature, as found in a document located by Jan Hurych in 2003"

Hmmm ... self-contradictory ! Are both well-cited ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No-one's responded to this yet! I notice as well that the "History" section mentions two letters (Johannes Marcus to Athanasius Kircher and Baresch to Kircher) that supposedly establish the early history of the manuscript; but the article later states that these letters only establish the existence of a book, which might or might not be the Voynich MS. Someone needs to decide whether this early history of the MS can reliably be considered "confirmed", and then get the whole article internally consistent! Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A recent Austrian documentary suggested that someone else was regularly putting Tepenecz's name into the books in Tepenecz's library. I could imagine it to be some servant, or somebody selling the library after Tepenecz's death. --87.151.27.43 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed the first paragraph of "Shorthand" due to lack of sources.

DO NOT post info on Wikipedia unless you cite sources. This should be bannable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.239.56 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... having just come back here to add some sources to the cipher section, it was a little bit of a surprise to find that you had removed the whole shorthand subsection. Next time, can I suggest you log in using your real name and bring up the issue on the Talk Page before just cutting things out? Thanks! Nickpelling (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The manuscript and the main page

As it is the centenary of the stated discovery of the manuscript could 'some mention be made' of it on the main page this year? And would a link from this article to my piece on WV on the History Files website be appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian language

I would delete the section Voynich manuscript#Ukrainian language. The sources appear to be blogs, and if it were successful at decrypting the text, then several reliable sources in English should be available. Consequently, I think mention is WP:UNDUE. It is not accepted in academic circles, so it sounds like the scientific reviews don't "critically acclaim" but rather "criticize". Glrx (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Rather is "critically meet." The text is corrected, thanks for the comments.

Regarding provided sources. References are made to articles in scientific journals. "Language and history: a collection of scientific papers. - Kiev: KNU" - the journal of the Kyiv National University. Unfortunately, these magazines do not have their own sites. Because materials placed on blogs to be able to read over the internet.Echorny (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just came here to mention this. Most of the sources seem to be blogs and other WP:SPS, and the later developments from Stojko's theory seem to be written by Echorny himself. The translation... well, you can judge its success yourself. The only accounts I can find in reliable sources (Scientific American) or here, for instance (maybe not an RS but still) seem to regard it as a nationalistic fringe view. Lithoderm 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The text in the article seems to label the material as WP:FRINGE rather than a significant viewpoint. If reviewers condemn the primary sources, then I don't think there's much weight. I looked at some proposed translations via Google translate before I posted, and was not satisfied with it due to the many possible interpretations. Original orthography is closer, but the variety is unsettling. Also the one cipher group to many words is odd. I'm using Lithoderm as a third opinion to delete. To include this material, there should be a consensus on the talk page first. WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is no information about the method of J. Stojko. Along with others who are mentioned in the article. I think that is necessary to supplement the article. Maybe in another edition. Update the information in the article or remove the matter to the experts. All success Echorny (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian language (deleted section)

“And I give it all, and acknowledge what God bids. All of those not belonging to us the faith shall subdue and shall preserve the thought”. This is how we may read the first two lines of text of the Manuscript using decryption method proposed by John Stojko. According to his hypothesis, the text was written in ancient Ukrainian. "Encryption" of the text is determined, firstly, by use of original graphemes and, secondly, all of the written words use consonants only. John Stojko proposed his version of the alphabet of the Manuscript’s graphemes and their correlation to Cyrillic and Latin alphabets.

In 1978 John Stojko published a brochure «Letters to God’s Eye» (New York, 1978). In this version of the reconstruction he provides the decryption of nine text’s pages. Pages were taken selectively, starting from page 15v. The text of «Letters to God's Eye» has gained popularity in Ukraine, but J. Stojko’s hypothesis has not yet been considered as a legitimate version in academic circles. More often scientific reviews critically meet Stojko's hypothesis and his translation of the text.

However, basing on this hypothesis, other attempts to reconstruct the Manuscript’s text have succeeded.( and ) Applying an improved Stojko's method, a version of the decryption of the first 20 pages of Manuscript has been published in 2011.

Edith Sherwood

• http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_decoded/index.php
• http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_decoded_part2/index.php
• http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_author_da_vinci/index.php

– kgyt (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Made by Da Vinci as a child

You should add that the Voynich manuscript was probably made by Da Vinci - and according to my studies, the manuscript was indeed made by a child. As a child Da Vinci admired scientific literature and scientific drawings. He was also interested in ciphers. Thus, he proceeded to make a ciphered scientific book that looks like one but is full of nonsense and pictures of imaginary plants and so on. You can clearly tell that the text in Voynich manuscript was not meant to be read: the words and lines have been placed irregularly, almost randomly sometimes, and the same words are repeated over and over again. Da Vinci is known to have a history of making "jokes", this is one of them. The handwriting matches Da Vinci's signature and in the book there are letters that Da Vinci used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.250.127 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that can support this? - SudoGhost 11:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's Edith Sherwood's pet theory, and hers alone. To my knowledge, nobody else considers da Vinci seriously. -- Syzygy (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there are some good arguments for a young da Vinci as creator...

Leonardo da Vinci and the Voynich Manuscript

176.5.31.233 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The carbone dating clearly tells us that the VM was written decades before Leonardo was even born. --87.151.27.43 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the carbon dating tells us that the sheep from which the vellum of the VM was taken were killed before daVinci was born, yet it's conceivable -- though not probable -- that the vellum did lie around for a few decades before it was written upon. (Comparable cases are known.) But there are plenty of other reasons speaking against daVinci. --Syzygy (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In certain crafts, trades and professions' the craftsmen's (or craftwomen's in some cases) goods, tools and materials would be passed on or sold when he (or she) died - so if the items were sufficiently hardy they could actually be used decades (or more) after their creation.

Does anyone know offhand whether vellum was prepared ahead of orders for particular books (so the scribes could start immediately on orders) or 'as and when orders were formally arranged'? Could the intended users have switched to the new-fangled modern printing (leaving a whole stack of vellum sheets at the back of the stationery cupboard for someone to make use of in due course)? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The nymphs page

Hmm where I can discuss that? Personally if You look for the photo, and even had biology in high school it look like a female organ drawing. If somebody found it before, why not include this info under the photo?

• Notice: Of course this look like only left Fallopian tubes and Ovaries but there are usually "mirrored" so nothing unusual to drawing only one part. Also the nymph below look like outgoing from there(like born by Vagina). See that also most nymphs look like "pregnant", and drawing/sculpturing "pregnant" women was usual thing from even times far before Romans(also "life cycle" was popular in art of all ages). Descending of most via Uterus is really like real knowledge about "made of" child. Connection with right/low page and the nymphs looking in their eyes in pairs may symbolize some other things: the lesbians, the solidarity/similarity of women, the believing/connection with stomach other parts, twins, and family. It is more than accurate - in my opinion - because, the most researches agree that creator of manuscript was a man. And knowledge about female, drawing them was a "mystery", and a "main topic". So knowing something about it was also a "saint, upper class" thing.

Article needs re-writing : Expert certain it's a hoax

I'm that expert. I think whoever's been maintaining this page is naive or a jokester. I have enough experience with manuscripts c. 800-1500 to recognize the Voynich manuscript as a joke, a hoax. The other day I found a large portion of it for free on Scribd. Look at the "biological" section, it's just page after page (at least 10) of groups of naked women either in hot tubs or parading around like kings or popes ! In one page there is a naked woman in what is clearly an old European pulpit holding a cross over the people below. Tell me that isn't Medieval satire of the same cloth as Chaucer or Gargantua. The reality is that between 800 and 1500 there were many nobles who were educated enough to write but not educated enough to know to give respect for the religion Christ founded on the Pope, and they did things like write books of magic which claimed antiquity but were actually based on Catholicism, the Illiad, and made-up stuff.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that the plant images and imagery is "chimeric" as the article puts it : obvious compositions of multiple things intended as fantastic.

This article is not a very serious treatment of the subject, and it's not surprising why. Scholars who know something wouldn't waste their time on an obvious hoax. I really doubt that all these professionals have declared that it statistically matches a natural languages. Perhaps they are also hoaxing. But if not, that one guy's idea of the prefix- affix- table method is possible. Why make it so elaborate ? Why not, even if no one notices, if it can be done and you have the time, why not ? It's not like this thing took its maker a lifetime to fabricate. If so it would have been a theoretical exercise in an age somewhat interested in the structure of known and common languages.

I say "hoax" but it's really a "joke" : it's an un-readable manuscript of curious images, like a curios, a Medieval treasure-room of relics and odd things, or a bestiary.

All the effort in "deciphering" it (probably half serious) is also mis-spent : what should be done is develop it as decipherment is impossible (no bi-lingual texts, unknown language, unknown script). I might make a simple conlang based on it by assigning phonemic values based on recurring graphic patterns, possibly making short vowels implied (to account for strings of consonants). It might be post-priori or a-priori, but if post-priori, maybe something following Ruhlen's Sino-Burushaski-Basque model. The odd script and undeciphered character have to be explained somehow.

Also, I think the guy above who claims to be an academic is not, but another joker. I don't think he writes like an academic would. What academics specialize in the Voynich manuscript ? Certain interesting and useful topics are forbidden discussion by the Academia.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to attempt to have your personal analysis peer reviewed and published to a reliable source, but short of that your interpretation of the article's subject shouldn't play a part in the forming of the article, because it's considered original research. We use reliable sources to determine how the article is written, not personal opinion, no matter how well educated that opinion is. - SudoGhost 06:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any self-declared "expert" who understands neither Wikipedia's posting policy nor the complexity of the Voynich Manuscript would be well advised not to post to Wikipedia's Voynich Manuscript page. :-( Nickpelling (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I like your style, Nick. :-) -- Syzygy (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dwarfkingdom, this manuscript is certainly made to become a fake - the purpose of scientific books like herbals etc. is to teach with them. Writing a book in a language which certainly is structurally far away from any of that period's languages misses the point entirely (not to mention ciphering it), thus you can exclude learning as a goal of this manuscript. From that you can speculate with many other theories of which fake is certainly most probable.Kogi123 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that instead of attacking Dwarfkingdom, we should rethink writing in this article about 'deciphering hidden meaning' of this manuscript - what would give such a deciphering? Description of plants from Mars? I don't think the intention of WP articles is throwing upside down current scientific view on world Kogi123 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

________

If you've got a good theory, then write up a paper and get it published. Otherwise it's not suitable for WP -- see WP:NOR. Also, what are these "interesting and useful topics" that are "forbidden" by "Academia"? If VM is just a hoax, then shouldn't it be "forbidden", because it's useless? mike4ty4 (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/godel-escher-bach/video-lectures/ Lecture 4 Video /10:40/ http://www.archive.org/download/MITHS.GodelEscherBach/OCW_7.22.07_Godel-220k.rm

AN ELEGANT HOAX? A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0161-110491892755

The Voynich Manuscript: Evidence of the Hoax Hypothesis http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01611190601133539 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.130.238 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.130.238 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Both Rugg's and Schinner's papers are already covered in the article. --Syzygy (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Inset of a page of the Voynich manuscript highlighting what appears to be a repetition of the same word six times consecutively.

The image labelled "Inset of a page of the Voynich manuscript highlighting what appears to be a repetition of the same word six times consecutively." is incorrect. It is a repetition of the same word three times consecutively, followed by a similar word repeated three times consecutively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.82.242.247 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the image from the article. Glrx (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

unsupported weasel wording

"Many books and articles have been written about the manuscript" The next sentence discusses versions of the manuscript. Need a bibliography of books written about it not versions of it. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea

Perhaps they should flip the words (computer wise) and/or zoom in one the pictures. It could be helpful, but it's probably a stupid thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.99.99 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I think i deciphered it November 22th, 2012 !!! it's a graphic code for the canvas on the other side of the page.... but wikipedia-france doesn't agree... Echapfr (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

But like the French Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia isn't the right place to discuss your finds, Eric! --Syzygy (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (from voynichthoughts...)

Reliable Sources?

• Gordon Rugg's claim: I only see a self-published source and two articles by journalists. There's no doubt that a table of 105,000 prefixes stems and suffixes could produce a text with 35,000 words, but using a smaller table and several different grilles would be detectable. Besides, the way he describes it (working through the table from left to right and top to bottom), identical sequences of prefixes, stems and suffixes would show up if different grilles were used on the same table. Has anyone verified his theory for more than just one page of the manuscript?
• Use of a codebook: However, book-based ciphers are viable only for short messages, because they are very cumbersome to write and to read. This statement is unsourced and seems to contradict the views of others on the subject. Using an existing book to code the message is not the same as using a codebook. Mary D'Imperio states that these were common practice in early codes used by the Catholic Church, and very easy for the initiate to use: with some practice the hundreds of codes could be memorized. (modern day example: before 2004 when they introduced bar code readers, cashiers at Aldi Nord had to memorize the codes for all products sold in the store). Ssscienccce (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• "letter-based cipher" theory:... through a cipher of some sort—an algorithm that operated on individual letters. This has been the working hypothesis for most twentieth-century deciphering attempts, including an informal team of NSA cryptographers led by William F. Friedman in the early 1950s.: The hypothesis rejected by most cryptographers would be more accurate. Tiltman, William Friedman, Elizebeth Friedman and others have all written that they concluded early on that ciphers (and especially simple and polyalphabetic substitution ciphers) could not explain the characteristics of the manuscript. Ssscienccce (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste

• No. 1

The Armenian alphabet....

like the Voynich alphabet has a variety of large Capital "P" shaped letters of varying complexity, some of them struck through.

Like the Voynich alphabet, Armenian has a variety of "2" and "ʔ" shaped letters, with and without loopy bits.

Like the Voynich alphabet, Armenian has several "&" or "$" shaped letters.

Armenian also has a variety of letters that have a similar form to "mmm", "uuu" and "www" (in their handwritten form). These, as in Voynich, make up the greater part of the script, with taller loopy letters sticking up above them and a few "g"ish and "y"ish letters projecting downward.

Both Armenian and Voynich have "O", and letters of similar form to "j", and "y" in their handwritten forms as well as "ɑ", "ŋ" and "ʒ".

Neither Armenian or Voynich have letters that resemble A, B, C, D, H, K, R, T, X.

Armenian shows a great deal of variation between different writers with some making their larger letters with far more loops and curlicues than others. However, a page of Armenian has a somewhat monotonous character, because of the proliferation of mmm and uuu.

Just thought you'd like to know.....

Amandajm (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• No. 2

Scripts

Anyone looked at old Armenian and Azerbaijani scripts? They superficially resemble the Voynich script. Did Basque once have its own script? The figures and words have an undeniably European look about them, but maybe the ms is just a bad copy of some non-european text. Lgh (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I find it just slightly amazing that an editor can post an analysis of this fascinating subject (albeit an entirely original analysis) and provoke not the tiniest flicker of interest.

Ten months later, and observant editor, who obviously hasn't read my post, makes the same observation.

Hasn't anybody taken this at all seriously enough to at least look at some Armenian scripts and comment? Ok! I'll publish it on a Blog and then you can look at it.

Amandajm (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but WP isn't the place to discuss new ideas; rather WP deals with what is "state-of-the-art", or accepted research. Why don't you sum up your ideas in a little PDF or a blog, and present them to the Voynich mailing list [6]? They are a bunch of friendly and knowledgable guys (me among them ;-), and will be happy to discuss your theories! -- Syzygy (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Spande has looked quite extensively at possible connections between Armenian and the Voynich Manuscript, and has posted numerous comments from his research on these two webpages: http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2012/08/25/that-which-brings-your-website-to-its-knees and http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2011/12/18/amirdovlat-amasiatsi-the-voynich-manuscript . Hope this is a help! Nickpelling (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas

Has Thomas Aquinas been suggested reliably as an author? He lived during the same timespan as some of the suggested authors, mostly in Italy, and his handwriting, a littera inintelligibilis, was a form of half-shorthand, half-scribbled writing, which doesn't look too far off from some of the more verbose sections of the manuscript, in my mind. He appears to have used some similar letters with less embellishment and curves. Here's an example of his handwriting and its transliteration/translation: Transcriptions of an Autograph Text of Thomas Aquinas from 1260 – 65 to the Present Day I have no basis upon which to make this suggestion, which is why I'm asking the question. Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is, of course, if it dates to the 13th century, as suggested by some. I have no idea of the reliability of carbon dating, but I was under the impression atmospheric conditions had more to do with variations than any other variable. Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for including a link (though I'd add that the scans the page included are so lo-res as to be almost unusable, *sigh*). Thomas Aquinas used the medieval version of Tironian notae, which formed the mainstream Latin shorthand system used across Europe throughout most of the Middle Ages. Indeed, a few Tironian shapes do closely resemble some of the shapes and usage we see in the Voynich Manuscript: word-initial '9' and word-terminal '9' both spring quickly to mind. Yet the beauty of 'the Voynich puzzle' is that this resemblance is only partial, i.e. one not extending to the whole system, and not satisfactorily explaining any of the other shapes. In short: there's no obvious reason to favour Thomas Aquinas over the radiocarbon dating. :-) Nickpelling (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

John Matthews Manley

Can the link to the correct John Manley be put in please. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a John Matthews Manly Wikipedia page. Hmmm... I'll try to add a stub in ASAP, JMM really ought to be there. Nickpelling (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some details on [7]/[8].

OR (and links to blogs) etc welcome on both these wikis (Voynich Language wiki - is centred on the Manuscript itself, Voynich Manuscript wiki on 'obscure documents generally'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8MoS5pIvqE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.28.32 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Following on from my comment above - [9] seems to be a useful source/reference. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC reference

This BBC News article may be useful [10]. Onanoff (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also on Yahoo - [11].

Richard III's remains have been discovered; and if the VM is 'solved' ('The ultimate puzzle book - will keep people busy for centuries'), what unsolved mysteries will researchers turn to next? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Successful translation of the manuscript

... will be indicated by having a 'coherent text' that runs for a section (even if of lorem ipsum or Finnegans Wake format). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)