Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The Voynich Manuscript has been deciphered.

It was written by Turks that invaded the Mediterranean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6keMgLmFEk  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.152.210 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC) 

Over many decades, hundreds of claims of dechifrement have been made, self-published or with only unscholarly sources such as newspapers. Usually only few words have been recovered, usually applying arbitrary and varying assumptions and principles. A few such a claim may be notable enough to warrant inclusion if they become significant parts of the ongoing saga of the Voynich manuscript, even if they are mistaken, but at the very least we need independent sources to that effect.--Nø (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should mention all the theories and claims which at least get coverage in mainstream media, which constitute independent sources. Do you agree? Example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voynich_manuscript&type=revision&diff=865550368&oldid=864555097 prokaryotes (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a separate list with one-sentence descriptions of 'X claims to have translated a few words/that the VM is from (context Y)' - to avoid repeated explanations of 'insufficiently notable.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, prokaryotes, I do not agree. Mainstream media have a surprisingly low bar when it comes to reporting on sensational claims in an area like this. As a rule, I don't think we should write stuff in this encyclopaedia that we expect will be irrelevant in a year or two. Unfolding current events may seem like an exception to this rule, but even there, if we write stuff we expect to last only hours or weeks, it is (or should be) because we expect it to be replaced by more complete information, not because we expect it soon to be devoid of interest.--Nø (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It has value since it helps to clarify popular current believes, and could even help in providing constructive ideas for deciphering attempts.prokaryotes (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nø, is right There are so many silly decipherment claim out there, that we really have to enforce the standard criteria for inclusion - that is notability as evidenced by coverage in reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. We are here to serve the readers. We should not distract them with recent conjectures or topics that have almost no support or followers. A list of dubious theories has no value to most readers. I do not want a high school student wasting time on a theory that fails WP:DUE. If a view point is held by a tiny minority, then it does not belong in Wikipedia. The view point may turn out to be true, but Wikipedia does not cover such topics until they acquire prominence. Glrx (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

As a reader who came to this page because of the claim, I can say I have reason to believe, taking myself as a data point, that the reader is better served by having mention of the claim in the body of the article. The video got over a million views, that's not a ton relative to other videos on youtube, but it's a large absolute number of potential readers.Carleas (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Same claim as discussed here last year.--Auric talk 16:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

So how should the balance be set for 'a list of mentions' (to prevent repeated addition and removal of 'the usual suspects') and 'sufficiently notable' (which may well involve more than my suggestion made on previous occasions, of 'providing more than a handful of random words from random pages and showing a certain coherence')? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if a decypherment attempt get's any real academic attention, I'd say that makes it an easy decision.

And if it's being published by someone who's a legitimate expert in medieval manuscripts, that's also a source I'd take seriously.

But ... a lay person that academics aren't paying attention to? Pass. It's too easy to fool yourself with pareidolia and then it's too easy to get a lazy reporter to parrot your "findings", because they love printing stories that the VM has either been "Deciphered" or "proven a hoax". ApLundell (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps 'academics and other persons regarded as experts in their field' would be more appropriate. In this case the experts would include dealers in documents of the early 15th century, or calligraphers and artists who can create material in the known styles of that period may well have opinions that carry some weight. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Music and language

A recent edit was removed regarding music under the language section. Regardless of the content and any claims, the article probably warrants a section on musical application. There are many examples in history of things being translated as music. Such as the 15th century Rosslyn Chapel.

It seems the original edit for Music was removed as potentially just another way to decrypt. But music is fundamental to language and communication and should be considered/applied regardless to unknown texts. There are also clear examples online such as an entire website dedicated to audio files representing the characters. And, for the record, it sounds beautiful. This wiki page focuses on methods of decoding which orient on cryptography and number theory but there are other forms of communication that require equal weight. There also should be clear references to articles on ideographic and pictographic symbolism. Other forms of language. I had noted certain language patterns myself. But I only added a section on music because that is relevant regardless of whether the original meaning of the manuscript turns out to relate to music or not. And, even regardless of whether anybody at all believes it is music.

There is also rational room for other theories to come together under a major category such as music. It could be classified as music and a theory such as the one above for Turkish language could both still be true. They are not mutually exclusive.

172.58.7.6 (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew

That all sounds good, but as with all theories, we're going to need reliable sources before we put it into the article.

On Wikipedia we try our best not to just fill the articles with stuff that we believe, but instead to fill the articles with things discussed by reliable sources. Ideally, peer reviewed academic sources, but there are other acceptable sources as well.

You might want to check out WP:RS for the policy. (And keep in mind, we're not looking for sources that musical manuscripts exist, we're looking for sources that specifically discuss musical manuscripts in the context of the Voynich Manuscript.) ApLundell (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like you are ignoring the point that music is fundamental to language and I don't think I need to cite anything on that point. The original section I posted referenced musical manuscripts with ideograms based on cheironomic hand-gestures. It was highly appropriate. They come from other wiki articles, date from the same period, don't represent mutually exclusive concepts...

That information WAS the peer reviewed data linking music to the Voynich manuscript.

But if you would like a simple reference to an ACTUAL example of this occurring in nature, (ie a human expressing the Voynich Manuscript musically) then please check here: http://www.voynich-music.de/

^^^ Behold. It is music. And I don't know that the author required it be peer reviewed for it to qualify as such.

172.58.7.6 (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew

It may be disappointing, but in Wikipedia we do not really care if your claim is true or false. (Ultimately, the academic process of humanity hopefully leads to truth and discards untruth, but it is a slow process.) We - as all encyclopaedias in our sense of the word - care if it is substantiated but acceptable sources, as stated by ApLundell.--Nø (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place for original research or general discussion of cryptography. Only sources about the VM. --ApLundell (talk)

Ya, ok. What I get out of that is that you guys still ignored the point about music and language. Im not sure that I made a claim that one would reference as true or false. I simply gave you a source of music as applied to this specific article. The words you responded with have VERY little actual information in them aside from stating that you simply are not interested in listing Music as a related section even though you have sections on multiple forms of language. Your response is unsubstantial and lacks any value. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew As has been said - one source is insufficient for Wikipedia purposes. Besides, the VM #does not look like a musical document# - not even a libretto. And most language is spoken or read rather than sung, so you, IP, have to prove that claim as well. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Guess what? We are ignoring your points! That's what we're trying to tell you. Wikipedia is not built on what the editors say. Wikipedia is based only on what sources say. It's not enough to point to a source that talks about musical manuscripts, because then it's only your opinion that it's relevant to the VM. What we need is one or more good, reliable sources, that discuss the possibility that the VM might be musical notation. If you don't have a source like that, then this conversation will go nowhere. Even if you convince us. Even if we 100% believe you, we still have to wait for a source. ApLundell (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC) ApLundell - hope you don't mind my adding 'IP' for clarification. To the casual observer the VM bears at least a superficial resemblance to Secretary hand/some of the scripts here rather than musical notation of the time. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC) That is 100% not the point. ApLundell (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Can you clarify slightly ApLundell? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC) The application of music to encoding/decoding as as significant as frequency analysis to cryptography. If you include cryptography, music should be equally represented. As most language is not based in cryptography either. It's simply a possible interpretation of what is otherwise merely chicken scratches. If we are going to apply one broad branch/interpretive method, others warrant mention. And, as far as music and spoken/written words being fundamentally intertwined... Im not going to even respond to whether that is a question. They are both expressions of language. Ways of communicating. It's fine guys. Don't add it. But I'm telling you, even if the section is empty, music warrants a footnote in this historical record. I only added it because it struck me as odd that it not be mentioned. I looked for a couple basic examples and listed them. I don't care what you do with it but it seems disingenuous to ignore that. Have a good day. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew You may very well be right. If you want to help, try to find independent sources, so that adding it to the article actually becomes an option.--Nø (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Ok. But bear in mind that this is not an argument for information that belongs on this page. This is an argument for why Music is relevant and deserves proper space on this historical record. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew Music The application of music to cryptanalysis and code breaking may not be clear at first but there are numerous references in history. One has to be careful when adding a notation to an undecoded text, but it is worth noting the application of music to cryptanalysis on historical documents. There are multiple ways music becomes relevant to any particular document through either direct encoding of a message in musical scales and notes or through the significance of music in cryptanalysis. ( http://www.interlude.hk/front/spies-and-music/ ). “The concept of music as the ‘universal language’ was carried further by philosophers in England German who proposed an artificial general language based on music. This was used in the early 19th century to try and teach blind French students how to read and communicate with their teachers via the violin. This attempt at communication with the blind was superseded by the development of Morse code.” I am unable to cut/paste from some of the references but there are numerous references to musicians in the Navy and NSA working on cryptanalysis: Capt. Thomas H. Dyer - https://books.google.com/books?id=qOD2-b--WkIC&pg=PT595&lpg=PT595&dq=capt+thomas+h+dyer+cryptanalysis+music&source=bl&ots=TJrkbVCCWO&sig=ACfU3U0HXEI1ajVMXhpCmaZJ-f3CDIr3Yg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZhJ70p5bgAhVCbK0KHYydAxcQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=capt%20thomas%20h%20dyer%20cryptanalysis%20music&f=false Agner Meyer: https://books.google.com/books?id=q61qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=cryptanalysis+music&source=bl&ots=36szOrtfsd&sig=ACfU3U0uN4zIXzpc2tnAMTtHKHyQbA4U1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyhMCejpbgAhVOTd8KHb6UDiQ4ChDoATAHegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=cryptanalysis%20music&f=false Books: Music and the Making of Modern Science - References papers on cryptanalysis as well as a paper called ‘Hearing the irrational: Music and the development of the modern concept of number’ https://books.google.com/books?id=HfPvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=cryptanalysis+music&source=bl&ots=T_BA6ZGoxH&sig=ACfU3U01CqdrjeA-rCU6QD447aGeo1OMtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyhMCejpbgAhVOTd8KHb6UDiQ4ChDoATAJegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=cryptanalysis%20music&f=false The aforementioned paper and author can be located here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47792916_Hearing_the_Irrational_Music_and_the_Development_of_the_Modern_Concept_of_Number The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge: - ‘He famously studied the cryptanalysis and was the first great theoretician of music in the Islamic Empire’ https://books.google.com/books?id=aJ5zDM1KfewC&pg=PT57&lpg=PT57&dq=A+great+mathematician,+he+studied+cryptanalysis+and+was+the+first+great+theoretician+of+music+in+the+Islamic+empire.&source=bl&ots=7vG4b345ZP&sig=ACfU3U0Qwnh34bIlWU1PaOUEG1xSz-xJjw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwityObHlJbgAhWjdd8KHe0mDqQQ6AEwCXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=A%20great%20mathematician%2C%20he%20studied%20cryptanalysis%20and%20was%20the%20first%20great%20theoretician%20of%20music%20in%20the%20Islamic%20empire.&f=false Merriam-Webster definition of cryptanalyst: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptanalyst 1  the solving of cryptograms or cryptographic systems 2  the theory of solving cryptograms or cryptographic systems : the art of devising methods for cryptanalysis Agnes Meyer was a brilliant young teacher who would become one of the great cryptanalysts of all time. Born in 1889 in Illinois, Meyer studied mathematics, music, physics, and foreign languages. Encoding within musical scores: https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Decoding_the_Renaissance_exhibition_material “The Birth of the Cryptographic Book (case 1) The Renaissance was the first great age of mass communication, but it was also the period when the art of secret writing came into its own. The new science of codes and ciphers produced some of the period’s most brilliant inventions, most beautiful books, and most enduring legacies.” Real examples of cryptography in musical scores: https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~1113479~180664:Gustavi-Seleni-Cryptomenytices-et-c?trs=2&qvq=q%3A80095%3Bsort%3ACall_Number%2CAuthor%2CCD_Title%2CImprint%3Blc%3AFOLGERCM1~6~6&mi=1&cic=FOLGERCM1~6~6&sort=Call_Number%2CAuthor%2CCD_Title%2CImprint Additional personnel at the NSA with music degrees: https://www.nsa.gov/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=70&ModuleId=10977&Article=1622423 More cryptanalysis by the NSA using music: Page 18: https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-spectrum/translator.pdf Joha's only hobby outside his linguistic specialty was his deep interest in operatic and other serious vocal music. He accumulated a tremendous collection of records, and although he had no musical training, his knowledge of various artists' recordings was encyclopedic. He was particularly fond of Schubert's lieder-he had made it a point to acquire every available recording of Schubert's "Die Forelle", for example. And he memorized the entire libretto of his favorite operas. NSA references cryptanalysis as art, music as mathematical approach that transcends cold logic: ftp://nohats.ca/nsa-friedman/41748389078762.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.7.6 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Listen guys, I'm currently trying to study hieroglyphs and cuneiform. When I was looking through this, the first thoughts I had were what ideograms and pictograms had been considered. Then I asked what musical considerations there were. Cryptanalysis was literally the last question I asked myself about this manuscript. Cryptography is a modern development. This document is evidently written on paper what was created using average materials and average processes and demonstrates no particularly ornate features aside from artistic renderings of flora and fauna. Aside from the application of a new technology to deciphering this, cryptography doesn't belong associated with this document at all. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew Further more, If cryptography has taken such an interest in this document, you have it backwards. This document should be listed as a footnote somewhere under a Cryptography section. Instead you have an entire section of this document dedicated to cryptography. It's a fair point to list cryptographic achievements for this manuscript in the page. But there needs to be equal weight to various linguistic considerations. I've listed a few relevant to this document. - Language - Ideograms - Pictograms (meh) - Music - Written language (not verbal!) - ... - Cryptography 172.58.7.6 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew You might have missed the message at the top of this talk page, so I'll repeat it for you here: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voynich manuscript article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Please, feel free to share your thoughts elsewhere. Drabkikker (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC) That is 100% about an improvement to the article. But go ahead. Make it clear that this is an admin decision to not make a change that has been thoroughly referenced. Even if empty, this page warrants a Music section. That is specifically about an improvement to the page and I have not gone off topic. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol ^^^^ For reference, in case you guys have forgotten. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew

It's not up to me to decide anything. It's just that you don't seem to understand that original research has no place here as long as it isn't backed by external sources. And what are your claims anyway? 'Music and language are closely connected' and 'The VM yields music if you run it through an algorithm'? Nobody is denying the former, but it doesn't pertain to the VM in particular, now does it? As for the latter, I hope you realize how silly that notion is. Anything will yield notes if you run it through an algorithm designed for that purpose, be it the Bible, the Voynich, my mom's shopping list or the entrails of a dead kangaroo. Drabkikker (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

To 'a non-Medieval-paleographer' the text of the VM #looks# like a hand/script of the period, rather than a musical manuscript of the time: and in the 100 years since Wilfrid started asking people for their thoughts on the matter, and with some of the best cryptographers of the 20th century being involved and various other participants, this IP is the only suggestion of a musical component. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That is also 100% not the point. ApLundell (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What original research? The only thing I've asserted is that when looking at this page, it only narrowly considers one element of linguistics. And I argue that the page should be restructured. Not an addition or removal of any information from wikipedia. That is 100% about this manuscript, 100% about improving this page and 100% relevant to this talk page.

The original persons who disagreed wanted to do so on the basis that "music is not language". Cryptography does not belong on this page as more than a foot note. Given the unknown nature of the manuscript, this page doesn't properly represent it. And everything you guys have responded is the same thing you accuse me of. You say it isn't a musical manuscript but you clearly have no supporting evidence.

Or DO you? And that belongs in a section on Music.......... ! 172.58.7.6 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.7.6 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

We're not saying it is or isn't.

We're saying that unless you have a source that specifically mentions music and the VM in the same source, then it's not appropriate for this article.

Finding sources about music and assuming that it applies here (even if you're right) counts as 'original research' on Wikipedia. ApLundell (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The same thing is true or cryptography or any specific linguistic analysis. Peace. 172.58.7.6 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Loggiew

IP - you have posed the idea that the VM has a musical component - which #may# be possible. Other shave posited that there is a cryptographic component - and many cryptographers have taken it on as a pursuit (whether or not an elegant one).

You have been asked to provide a sufficiency of references - but have not done so.

Wikipedia has its rules and conventions - which, inter alia, mean that it it wishes to be a secondary source/provide an overview of bibliographical and other sources, and, at times, will note developing concepts/OR so that the relevant sources can be monitored and material added when the criteria have been met.

Can I draw your attention to the Sagan standard. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Antoine Casanova

This section is being repeatedly added and removed: there does not seem to be sufficient supporting/corroborative evidence and sources. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again. (The previous times it was added by Antoine Casanova himself, and then when he was told he couldn't promote his own work, another anonymous account suddenly appeared and tried to add the same material! Come on, how stupid does he think we are?)

Anyway, it's the same old nonsense. One person who thinks they've decoded it. No real sources. Just a few self-published articles, A podcast, and a news article about the VM that mentions AC in passing as one of many researchers working on it.

Nothing to differentiate it from every other person who thinks they've decoded it.

ApLundell (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How valid is my 'any "translation" should give passages of coherent text (which reflect the interests and style of the time in order to be considered' suggestion? (This would be valid for both multi-lingual commonplace books and 'an actual book rewritten in a fancified script and purporting to be from eg Prester John/similar figure from outside Europe known at the time of writing')? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

These are intended suggestions/possibilities (and 'category 'slightly more likely than Francis Bacon or the Cathars as authors'). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, it can't overrule notability guidelines.

Even if a translation gives pages and pages of coherent text, but no legitimate sources are interested, then it doesn't really belong here.

ApLundell (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think even as a rule of thumb it falls down. Some "decoding" methods are so flexible that you could "decode" whole pages of random gibberish.ApLundell (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Just removed it again. Here's why :

• • [1]-- This source is self-published.
  • [2] -- This source is self-published.
  • [3] -- This article barely even *mentions* Casanova.
  • [4] -- This source is a podcast. I'll admit I'm not sure how notable this podcast is. Is Franceculture.fr the sort publication that would make this notable? It doesn't seem to be. Podcasts usually aren't.
  • [5] -- Another self-published source.

And that's it. Those are all the sources in the contested material. Nothing of note. Nothing RS. Nothing to elevate it above the zillions of other people who have claimed to decode the manuscript.

I don't see any justification for including it at this point. ApLundell (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I second the current assessment re Casanova's work. We need RS to pass judgment on the work.

@Jackiespeel: your viewpoint on decoding is appropriate, but the metric is something that RS should be applying rather than editors. Apply WP:DUE is the simple metric. If the viewpoint is not held by a significant minority, then it does not belong on WP. Glrx (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As a point of interest, he commented on my talk page here.

ApLundell (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The general rule of 'if the translation/decipherment doesn't make sense, the wrong rules-of-transformation are being used' (especially given the number of expert cryptographers and other interested parties who have tried their various hands at it). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent progress

A Yale Library manuscript has finally been decoded, and there is nothing codelike about it except that the combination of language and characters in which it was written put people off. At the end of the first and top of the 2nd page are some of the hilarious speculations about the writer and purpose of the MS, such as that it was written by an alien or in a secret code.

It's just vulgar Latin in an early "italic text," written by a woman in the 15th century at a castle on an island. Pages can be seen at https://beinecke.library.yale.edu/collections/highlights/voynich-manuscript

These are all on the linguistics website LingBuzz: The first paper explains the writing system and language: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003737 The second paper translates a pictorial map from the manuscript: ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003808 The third paper focuses on volcanic details from the map: ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004381

Food for thought. Convinced me. Keith Henson (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So where is an actual translation? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example taken from Cheshire's article (version 18, p. 21):

On Spread 83. Left. The first three lines read: molor orqueina doleina dolinar æor domar om nar nar or æina, dolina ræina domor nor æina æina na nas omina eimina rolasa, nais oe eina domina domeina etna domar doma dolar dolina ro. The Vulgar Latin molor in this instance is the Classical Latin mollor (soften/calm/pacify) as the Classical Latin molor (grind/mill/wear) would be inappropriate. This example explains why double consonants were reintroduced after the period of the MS 408 manuscript, to refine the use of the written language in the post-Mediaeval.

The word ro is an abbreviation for rogo (to ask/request: Latin); eimina is to eliminate in Spanish and Portuguese; om is hom (homine) meaning man in Latin; nar nar means foolish/crazy/up-tight in Romansch; nor means daughter-in-law in Aromanian; ræina (reina) means queen in the Romance languages; omina means omen in Latin; domina means lady in Latin; domena means domain/room in Latin; dolina/dolinar means bath/bathe in Romance languages; domar means to tame/control in Catalan and Portuguese; doleina means therapeutic in Catalan; æina means wife in Catalan; etna (ætna) means to heat/burn in Latin/Greek: nais means to begin/commence/create in French. Thus, the transliteration is constructed by inserting connectives, thereby turning the Vulgar Latin into logical modern sentences.

So, a reasonable transliteration would be: Calming with therapeutic bathing is always certain to tame the tense man and wife. A queen’s bath always relaxes the daughter-in-law and wife to eliminate the omen, for it to happen. Begin now the method for the lady’s domain, and heat the room to make the bathing smooth, please! So, the passage appears to be advice for the mother (queen) of a prince to impart to her daughter in-law as guidance for seducing her son and becoming pregnant.

See, children, now this is what we call pseudoscience. Drabkikker (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: As expected, Nick Pelling has shredded it to pieces long ago and more eloquently than I ever could. Drabkikker (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

The version of proto-Romance language used in Manuscript MS408 is closest linguistically to Portuguese, Catalan, Galician and Occitan. This is evidently due to the language having developed from Vulgar Latin at a time when Naples, Ischia and the Aeolian Islands were part of the Crown of Aragon. The other Romance languages; Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian all preserve some of the lexicon, as do the southeast European languages Croatian, Greek, Hungarian, Albanian, Slovenian. In addition, there are Germanic, Norse, Persian and Arabic influences on the proto-Romance of the manuscript.

This demonstrates just how translocating peoples, cultures and languages were across Europe, North Africa and the Near East during the Mediaeval. Of course, the Mediterranean was the focal point of trade, slavery, warfare and political flux at that time, which explains why so much movement occurred prior to the Renaissance, when the modern map began to form.

In scientific terms, the Mediterranean was a ‘meme-pool’, so that idea, knowledge and methods of communication were constantly interacting, with Naples as the epicentre of it all, being the largest city in Europe during the Mediaeval. Little wonder, then, that its version of proto-Romance was such a heady mix of Occidental languages and vestigial Latin. The city was filled to brimming with peoples of many different nations, all using the language as a common tongue in order to exchange information, know-how, property and goods.

Thanks to the miraculous survival of Manuscript MS408, historians now have a new window into the mid-fifteenth century Neapolitan world, and linguists have, in a single document, the only known examples of proto-Italics and proto- Romance. In effect, Manuscript MS408 is the Mediaeval Rosetta Stone and should therefore provide a wealth of linguistic and historic data for scholars to investigate and fascinate over for many years to come.

PDF from https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003808

From the other paper,

The companion paper Linguistically Dating and Locating Manuscript MS408 shows that the manuscript dates from 1444 and was created on the island of Ischia.

I have read the papers and while I don't expect the Wikipedia entity to change (not secondary sources), I would bet fairly long odds that this is the solution. It is self-consistent.

Keith Henson (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you also read Nick Pelling's reaction to the article I linked above? Sure, the man's tone is snarky to the point of being arrogant, but he knows what he is talking about. Many would-be Voynich crackers would benefit from reading his website first before proceeding. Drabkikker (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, read it, agree with you about snarky. Some of the complaints Nick makes such as the regional variation of Vulgar Latin are in agreement with Gerard Cheshire. Cheshire nailing the creation date down by a volcanic eruption seems (if not airtight) like something that either has support from other documents or can be refuted. The analysis of the fold out seems like it deserves study because it just makes sense.

Thinking about it and looking at the other claims, perhaps Gerard Cheshire should be mentioned after all. It might focus attention on what seems to be the least complicated explanation of the VM.

Gerard Cheshire

In 2017 Cheshire made a case for the content, origin, location, and date of the VM in three papers. The first paper explains the writing system and language: The second paper translates a pictorial map from the manuscript: The third paper focuses on volcanic details from the map:

What do you think? Keith Henson (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as Cheshire's linguistic analysis is concerned, I think it is pseudoscience, full of red flags like cherry picking, wishful thinking, confirmation bias and a general misunderstanding of historical linguistics. Pelling has some very valid points that cannot be conveniently ignored, no matter how snide. Drabkikker (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you think Cheshire is wrong about the provenance, date or substance of the VM? Keith Henson (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not qualified to evaluate his conclusions, but as far as the linguistic part is concerned I have serious reservations about the method by which he arrives at them. Drabkikker (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what "linguistic" means in this context. Is it the translation or a proceeding step? The paraphrasing to modern English looks reasonable. Keith Henson (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to read through this thread at the Voynich.ninja forum, as it addresses many of the problems with Cheshire's approach. Drabkikker (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I read it. There is little comment on the content or conclusions and lots on Cheshire's failure to use certain standard terms. It's more or less standard ad hominem which is expected for an outsider contributing to any field. I have some experience with that. My background is electrical engineering, but I contributed a couple of papers on new aspects of evolutionary psychology. After about 15 years, the papers are still being downloaded and cited, i.e., they became more or less orthodox. I suspect Cheshire has figured out the VM for what it is and where it came from and that time will prove him right. Keith Henson (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you miss the valid points that were made amidst the ad hominem? Or do you choose to use the ad hominem as a justification to simply dismiss them? Specifically, did you come across this post in the thread? Don't you think these objections deserve the utmost scrutiny? Drabkikker (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read that post. The guy completely misunderstands Cheshire's proposal to figure out the VM. Though I suspect that Cheshire doesn't help by using non-standard terms. Keith Henson (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Will modify my occasionally made statement - that any translation of the VM (in part - if a compilation of texts - or in whole) should give a reasonably coherent text and will 'make the news' (TV/print) as being positive news , followed by 'instant TV programs' and 'instant books' (which are then followed by refutations and an archive-page's-worth of discussion on this talk page). Jackiespeel (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this translation getting attention is that it is mundane. Apparently, it was written by a woman mostly about women's health issues and a rescue of people from a volcanic eruption. If you don't get hung up on terminology issues, the whole story hangs together, at least that's the view of this outsider. Keith Henson (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(reset) But 'mysterious medieval manuscript's mundane meaning' #would# make a newsworthy story (and being rescued from a volcanic eruption is not mundane). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I know a few science reporters, maybe aim them at this work. Keith Henson (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent plan! Let's pray they don't know any actual science, though, or they might expose Cheshire's work for what it is. ;) (Nah, reporters would'nt want to ruin a perfectly good scoop, now would they?)

Back to being unsarcastic: Is there a specific reason you find Cheshire's approach more compelling than, say, Antoine Casanova's? Drabkikker (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Cheshire's approach is far more detailed and he explains his steps. But Antoine Casanova's work is broadly consistent with Cheshire's. They both think it is Latin related, Cheshire goes into more details about the origin and dating of the VM. Neither one of them thinks the text is hidden cryptographically. You might try asking someone not in the VM interest group to read the papers. I find them to be logical. As a prediction, I expect wide agreement will emerge in the next year around Cheshire's take on the VM. Keith Henson (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your optimism is laudable :) Do you like whiskey? 'Cause I'd happily wager a good bottle of aged Islay if you're right. How about we meet again at this very spot on March 20, 2020? Ooohboy, can't wait! Drabkikker (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Technically would not Islay be whisky rather than whiskey? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Blimey! You're right. :) Drabkikker (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Are third party sources taking this seriously? If not, it's not our job to make excuses for it. ApLundell (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My comments/statement on the viability of a translation, or the original posting? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ApLundell - I see no third-party references. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/swVuSNZ3fJrdMF9zhEjK/full

So there is now a peer-reviewed article. I can edit this into the article unless someone else wants to do it. Keith Henson (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to see a reliable secondary source commenting on the solution. Cheshire's article is a recent primary source. Primary sources do not indicate the number of adherents to a theory. If Cheshire's claims have merit, the reliable secondary sources should follow. Glrx (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some news outlets have picked this up and are reporting it as a solution: [6][7][8]

Information that may be wrong or may be right

Doing a google search, I was referred to these sites. Could someone who spent more time than I have give a brief review of them, so the notes will be there for the next interested reader ?

The Voynich Code - The Worlds Most Mysterious Manuscript - Youtube

• https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=awGN5NApDy4

  YouTube title: The Voynich Code - The Worlds Most Mysterious Manuscript - The Secrets of Nature

  Published on May 9, 2014

  by The Secrets of Nature ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVGTgXC1P--xM480Z6DqyAg )

  Blurb:

  It is the world's most mysterious manuscript. A book, written by an unknown author, illustrated with pictures that are as bizarre as they are puzzling -- and written in a language that even the best cryptographers have been unable to decode. No wonder that this script even has a part in Dan Brown's latest bestseller "The Lost Symbol".

Analysis

• video shows a man and woman physically touching the parchements. Is this plausible ?

  as of April 25,2019 this is almost five (5) years old.

  How has information changed since publishing ?

  Documentary style video, almost an hour long.

  Any evidence that the people mentioned as experts actually know what they are talking about?

  Paolo Zayets ?

  How accurate are any of the descriptions or statements in the video ?

Voynich Manuscript Revealed (2018) Youtube

• https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6keMgLmFEk

  YouTube title: Voynich Manuscript Revealed (2018)

  Published on Feb 22, 2018

  by Voynich Manuscript Research ( https:// www.youtube.com/channel/UCV5XKnvPwdQ19dbQRDHljFw )

  Thanked Yale for digital images of manuscript.

  Blurb:

  The Voynich Manuscript is a mysterious medieval manuscript written in the early 15th century. To date, scientists, historians, mathematicians and linguists have struggled to decipher the manuscript. However, the mystery has finally been put to rest. Ata Team Alberta (ATA) has deciphered and translated over 30% the manuscript. Currently, a formal paper of the philological study was submitted to an academic journal in John Hopkins University.

Analysis

• as of April 25,2019 is this is 14 months old.

  Claims only worked on for four years (since 2015 ?)

  Did the Philological study get published ?

  Report style video about 12 minutes long.

  Any evidence that the people mentioned as experts actually know what they are talking about?

  • Ata Team Alberta (ATA)
  • Ahmet Ardic -- electrical or electronic engineer?
  • Alp Erkan Ardic - son of Ahmet
  • Ozan Ardic - son of Ahmet

  How accurate are any of the descriptions or statements in the video ?

  • Claims matched 5 of the 12 "months" mentioned as ancient or modern month names.
  • Claims alphabet used had 24 letters and over 60 combined letters. and ?combdas? https:// youtu.be/p6keMgLmFEk?t=290
    • gives examples of letter combinations and Turkish translations. (rope, rope measures)
  • Claims translated words from page 58 where 28 words were direct translations from Turkish

    https:// youtu.be/p6keMgLmFEk?t=561

  • Claims 30% translation. Not clear if translation of whole manuscript or of one page

Jawitkien (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

My usual comments apply: any translation should produce more than a few running words in a given section (the VM may be a collection of different texts brought together), and should be 'of its time and place.' Jackiespeel (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

References

another purported translation

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566

Gerard Cheshire (2019) The Language and Writing System of MS408 (Voynich) Explained, Romance Studies, DOI: 10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566

173.228.123.207 (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)