There are a number of conundrums – or, if you like, problems – that must be addressed by any proposed solution to the Voynich language and text. The text displays some general characteristics that are difficult to explain.
Note that while it is said that there are two “languages” – surely better described as “dialects” – these problems are the same throughout the entire text. Talk of “Currier A” and “Currier B” distracts us from the fact that the manuscript displays a single linguistic phenomenon, albeit in two discernible variants. The problem of the “dialects” (variants) is a separate issue and makes no difference to the following:
*The spelling of vords is highly restrained and predictable. Vords are carefully constructed according to strict rules. The internal structure of vords is rigid.
*Within restraints vords are highly mutable. In most cases we find a series of permutations of vords. They belong to families of permutations in which, within the set restraints, all combinations are exhausted and appear in the lexicon. Almost all vords seem to be permutations of a small number of basic forms.
*Regarding mutability, many glyphs appear to be consistently interchangable. If you substitute one glyph for the other you make a valid vord.
*There are conspicuously few short or long vords. They gather towards a standard length of about five letters.
*There is very loose (weak) vord order. Vords can appear together in various combinations and orders. There are few, if any, signs of any grammar one would associate with sentence structure.
*There are very few recurring phrases or strings of vords.
*There is an unusual degree of vord repetition. There are clusters (lists) of same-self or similar permutations of vords. For example, on page f77v we find this:
qetedy.shedy.qotol.odal.chal.dar.qopshedy.qotedy.qotedy.qokedy.dal-
This characteristic of the text is well illustrated by an example provided by T. Timm:
The vords [chol] [cthol] [shol] - which appear to be permutations of the same vord - occur together three times, but each time in a different order:
f1v - chol cthol shol
f4v - chol shol cthol
f42v - cthol chol shol
*There are peculiar orthographic features such as glyphs that tend to appear in the first lines of paragraphs and evidence that the text has not been assembled sequentially.
These are the main peculiar features of the language, apart from its unique script. The challenge is to provide a single solution that accounts for all of these observable phenomena. There must be one: somebody made the text somehow. So far no solution has shown the mettle.
We might also add to these conundrums the fact that, while all of these characteristics are non-language like, the texts looks very much like a language. There is the question: Why is the appearance so different to the reality?
* * *
In these pages I attempt to find plausible solutions to these problems - an explanation for Voynichese - by placing the manuscript within a particular context, guided by its copious illustrations. By my interpretation the manuscript depicts the herbal tradition of the Ladin people of northern Italy, informed in some way by the cosmology and natural science perspectives of Nicholas of Cusa. That allows for certain scenarios and possibilities. For a start, it suggests a range of languages that are at least in the background and makes others unlikely.
Within that context, the solution to the text and language I offer is this:
A plaintext of data, largely concerning weights and measures, in the form of tables - a sort of survey - has been presented as reports of the nymphs.
I contend that this one solution could, possibly, meet all of the above problems.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment