Deceptive EVA

The Voynich glyph set includes many glyphs that can be identified as lower case Latin letters. But this is not true of them all. In fact, the glyph set is eclectic and includes glyphs of several types. Some can be identified as glyphs from Latin abbreviations, while the so-called gallows glyphs are only known, by resemblance, to Latin script decorations. It is not clear, in any case, that all the glyphs come from models in which they are letters of an alphabet. At least some of the glyphs may be modeled on forms that usually had other functions. Certainly, some of them resemble Arabic numerals and some may be based on Roman numerals. These matters are debated and unresolved.

The actual state of affairs is obscured by the EVA transcription script, which presents all of the glyphs as letters. It might be a fair assumption, and it is a good strategy for the practical purposes of study, but it gives the impression that the Voynich text may be more language-like than it is. From time to time lone voices raise this issue - it is a matter of concern to J. K.Peterson, for instance -  but it is generally overlooked. EVA makes the text look language-like, but this may be deceptive. If we transcribe the Voynich glyphs differently, suddenly our perception of the text changes.

We really have no basis for knowing what any of the glyphs represent. Their resemblance to Latin precedents is a reasonable guess, but may be wrong to assume all the glyphs are letters.

Neither the Currier nor the Voynich 101 transcription systems make this assumption, and so they may be a more accurate representation of the real nature of the text. EVA is widely used, though, and people become familiar with a very language-like presentation.

Here below is the difference between the EVA and Voynich 101 transcriptions:

fachys ykal ar ataiin shol shory cthres y kor sholdy sory ckhar or y kair chtaiin shar are cthar cthar dan syaiir sheky or ykaiin shod cthoary cthes daraiin sa ooiin oteey oteos roloty cthar daiin otaiin or okan dair y chear cthaiin cphar cfhaiin ydaraishy

fa19s.9,hae.ay.Akam.2oe.!oy9.ýscs.9.hoy.2oe89- soy9.Hay.oy,9.hacy.1kam.2ay.Ais.Kay.Kay.8aN- s9aIy.2ch9.oy.9ham.+o8.Ko,ay9.Kcs.8ay,am.s9- 8om.okcc9.okcoy.y,oeok9.èAay.8am.oham.oy.ohaN- saz9.1cay.Kam.Jay.Fam.98ayai29=

* * *

What if the glyphs are being used for non-linguistic purposes and consist, say, of astrological symbols and numbers? Transcriptions then look a lot less like words and more like formulae. Here - purely for fun - is a possible transcription series for the main glyph set:

If we were working with a symbol set like this, our experience of the text would be entirely different. In EVA our vord  qokechy looks like this: qokechy. But in the above transcription system it looks like this: 40A369. Take any word:  opcholdy . In EVA = opcholdy. In my example transcription system: 0D60U89.

Again: we have no idea what the glyphs in the manuscript represent. There are strong arguments to say they are the letters of an alphabet, and therefore groups of them constitute words in a language. It certainly appears that way. (There are about the right number for an alphabet.) But the EVA transcription makes it appear even more so by treating every glyph as a letter, including glyphs that, in Latin, are usually abbreviations or decorations.

The ascription of the letters P F K and T to the elevated "gallows' letters is especially arbitrary and may be very misleading. As it is, EVA P hardly behaves like a letter at all. In most cases it seems to act like a pilcrow or paragraph marker. Yet the EVA system treats it, and the other gallows, the same as the other glyphs.

Questions of whether the text is linguistic or not can be influenced by these appearances. If we treat the glyph set as an alphabet - overlooking the fact that it consists of a mixture of types of glyphs - then we will be very much inclined to tackle it as a language and will examine it with such assumptions. But if we were to depict the text as variegated, a mixture of different sets, perhaps a mix of letters and numbers or symbols, then the text is more open to very different studies and interpretations, and not necessarily cryptological solutions.

EVA, of course, is just a tool of convenience, and it does remain impressive that its designations of vowels and consonants produces such a likeness of real text. But it may be misleading in exactly this respect. It is certainly worth considering the Voynich glyph set in different ways.

R.B.