This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The introduction to the timeline speaks of colors. I see none. Kdammers ( talk) 13:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The article says that also Voynich himself may be the author, but it also says that there are many evidences the manuscript existed before Voynich birth. Isn't this an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1can ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The article and the timeline claim that the manuscript was owned by Rudolf II for a while. However, as far as I know, that was only a claim that "Dr. Raphael" (believed to be
Raphael Sobiehrd-Mnishovsky) made to Marci, as reported in the 1665/1666 letter.
There is no reason to trust that claim, especially considering that he also claimed that the author was believed to be Roger Bacon, and that Marci himself noted that he was "suspending his judgement" on the matter. Rudolf II abdicated in 1611 and died in 1612, and Raphael was born in 1580 and died in 1644. Thus Marci was reporting something that Raphael told him more than 21 years earlier, about a book that Rudolf purchased at least 54 years before the letter.
(And there are even those who claim that
Marci's 1665 letter to Kircher was a forgery by Wilfrid Voynich...)
So, unless more independent evidence has been found in recent years, I propose changing the mentions of Rudolf's ownership from fact to mere rumour...
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
06:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"Rudolf II abdicated in 1611 and died in 1612, and Raphael was born in 1580 and died in 1644. Thus Marci was reporting something that Raphael told him more than 21 years earlier, about a book that Rudolf purchased at least 54 years before the letter."
And? Most history bools were written decades if not centuries after the fact. Dr. Raphael was a cryptographer who worked under Rudolf II, which makes the "rumor" even more plausible.
ConfusedEnoch ( talk) 06:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this edit is undue weight. I have reverted it, so we can discuss it here.
1) Academia dot edu formats its articles like a journal would, but it is not a journal. It's a social publishing platform like Medium.com. Such publications are not normally usable as sources on Wikipedia. (per WP:RSSELF)
2) Everyone involved in this source is an amateur, (Like Cheshire himself.) so it should not be used to imply that he has support within academia.
2b) Specifically, the primary authors are : A highschool student and his science teacher. (There are also a handful of other co-authors with no listed credentials. Probably classmates.)
ApLundell ( talk) 20:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The chinese Artist Xu Bing had created a book, which was made from 4000 meaningless ´chinese´ symbols: A Book from the Sky.
This is an example, to show that books might exist - with a meaningless content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:736:819:65E7:7FC:77CE:80CE ( talk) 15:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article does also include a statement that the manuscript was written using a "possibly meaningless writing system." The debate about this question is still ongoing. Therefore I would suggest a more neutral start.
Note: I'm not neutral in this matter. I support the hypothesis that the text is meaningless and that the intention behind the writing system is indeed to write something meaningless. Together with Andreas Schinner I have recently published a paper about the Voynich manuscript. In this paper we are arguing: "Beyond this coarse classification several potentially promising cross-overs are conceivable, e.g., the usage of 'random' strings as container for steganography; or the VMS could be a medieval scholar’s 'notebook', written in an individual combination of cipher and shorthand. Why are we then convinced that the hoax hypothesis can be the only correct interpretation of the VMS? Most likely, it is impossible to devise an exact mathematical proof that an arbitrary set of strings is truly meaningless, or not. This would involve a general method to compute upper boundaries to the Kolmogorov complexity. However, in the case of the VMS many statistical properties have been uncovered that, in their entirety, are incompatible with any known human language." (see Timm & Schinner p. 16; URL: https://www.kereti.de/pdf/TTAS.pdf) Kadmos ( talk) 20:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
A sphynx is a kind of cat: Sphynx cat -- Syzygy ( talk) 08:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Alisa Gladyseva recently claims to have deciphered the whole manuscript, as "written in medieval Castellano and its dialect, using the Latin, old-French, and old Catalan names of flowers". I mention this information simply as having found it in ResearchGate. Errantius ( talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
But according to Alisa Gladyseva:"Because the deciphered text of the Voynich manuscript is easy to read and as a result, it is possible plagiarism, secondary sources are not available due to copyright law and restrictions on preprints of scientific journals." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuscriptVoynich ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course, the bursa pastoris has been known since medieval times. See the scientific work of MICHAEL S. DEFELICE "Shepherd's-purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic.", Weed Technology, 15 (4), 892-895, (October 1, 2001).
According to the book THE DECIPHERING THE WHOLE TEXT OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT BY ALISA GLADYŠEVA, [3] Chapter 7.1 THE COMPLETE LIST OF ALL THE BOTANICAL NAMES DETERMINATED IN THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT WITH LATIN TAXONOMY, VERNACULAR BOTANICAL NAMES AND LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGIN OF NOMENCLATURES WITH THEIR SOURCES IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD. All botanical names that have been identified in the Voynich Manuscript have been deciphered and read in the very text of the Voynich Manuscript. It is the only research of the Voynich Manuscript that is primarily and generally based on its linguistic source – the lexicology, but not on the analysis of phytomorphs’ similarities with herbarium specimens that were always made by other researchers ( J. Janick, A.O. Tucker, 2017; Stephen Bax, 2014) that led to wrong encompassing of plant species due to difficulty of determination. Therefore, less than 10 percent of plants that were determined by other researchers are correct. Some of the researchers for e.g. Gerard Cheshire (G. Cheshire, 2019), even suggested that there are no botanical names at the whole Voynich manuscript due to their absence in the medieval period, therefore his research results are double incorrect. Important that these innovative research results are succesfull. All 131 plants have been deciphered. pages 139-172 Information for publishers and editors of the scientific journals, the author is open to publish any chapter of "Decoding the whole text of the Voynich manuscript by Alisa Gladyseva".
This means that Alisa Gladysseva not only found all 131 plant names, but also proved “THE ORIGIN OF NOMENCLATURES WITH THEIR SOURCES IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD”.
Since the submission of scientific articles for publication in scientific journals must not have been previously published nor has it been submitted for consideration by any other journal, the information on the content of some chapters is omitted in the preview of this book "Decoding the whole text of the Voynich manuscript by Alisa Gladyseva".
According to ANY scientific journal, it is impossible to prepublish a scientific work, before its publishing. Alisa Gladyseva is in the process of publication, and due to the coronavirus, some research journals are out of print since 2019. She is looking for scientific journals to publish various articles (linguistic, historical) on the deciphering of the full text of the Voynich manuscript. [4] . For now it is absolutely true that Alisa Gladyseva has read marginalia of months and other marginalia in medieval Galician. See her scientific article [5] At first it is important to READ Alisa Gladyseva's decipherment, because she really deciphered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuscriptVoynich ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
You are wrong User: Syzygy, about the shepherd's purse, do you mean linnean ?? If you cannot read the research paper by MICHAEL S. DEFLIS "Shepherd's Wallet, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic.", Weed Technology, 15 (4), 892-895, (October 1, 2001), where it is written, that Bursa pastoris was known as bursa pastoris in the Middle Ages. So, the history of plants does not interest you, why do you need a transcript and a translation of the Voynich manuscript? (You don't know plant history, Latin and medieval Galician languages as well.)
Alisa Gladiseva is a scientist, that is, not a populizer for those who do not eager for knowledge, she is still in research.
As for me Cryptologia is not the best place for publishing, in reason of 1 year period of acceptance. There are existing RELIABLE PRIMARY sources, f.eg. where Alisa Gladyseva has read marginalia of months and other marginalia in medieval Galician.: «ANALYSIS CODING ALGORITHM WITH THE KNOWN IN MEDIEVAL PERIOD METHODS OF CIPHERING AND RESULTS OF THE UNENCRYPTED MARGINALIA OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT.» Manuscrito de Voynich - Análisis del algoritmo de codificación con los métodos de cifrado conocidos en la época medieval y resultados de las marginalias que no fueron encriptadas.January 2020Revista Científica Arbitrada de la Fundación MenteClara 5 DOI: 10.32351/rca.v5.128 https://fundacionmenteclara.org.ar/revista/index.php/RCA/article/view/128 DECIPHERING THE WHOLE TEXT OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT BY ALISA GLADYŠEVA. The linguistic basis of the text, index and analysis. October 2020 Edition: THE 1 STPublisher: ALISA GLADYŠEVA Editor: GG ISBN: ISBN: 978-609-475-419-7 it is absolutely true that Alisa Gladyseva has read marginalia of months and other marginalia in medieval Galician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuscriptVoynich ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
ːːFor the recordː No plausible claim for any immediate changes to the article has been made here. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss such changes, not to discuss ongoing or unpublished research. It's amazing if we can all finally read the Voynich manuscript soon, and rest assuredː That day (or week), the article here will include that important fact, and probably, eventually, reduce a lot of the content now in the article to a much briefer summary of failed attempts and speculations. Until that day, there is no need or relevance in expanding this talk section any further.-- Nø ( talk) 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
ːːI've added a reflist to this section -- Thereisnous ( talk) 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help); External link in |ref=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
I've tried to find a transcription published under Creative Commons (or similar) license, but without success.
Such transcription would be a valuable contribution to the article (and to the decipherment of the manuscript).
Dear fellow editors, have you encountered such a free transcription? -- Thereisnous ( talk) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The 2018 Crytech videogame Hunt Showdown has a library of two lore books within it. Some of the articles (i.e. Liber de Monstrorvm/armored/entry 2) are said to be translated from Voynich. This is likely a reference to the unique language used in the manuscript, but I am unsure if it is too vague to be considered a cultural influence reference point. 69.174.157.101 ( talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Usually the image in the infobox on a book is the cover of the first edition; right now the image here is page 32. The cover of the Voynich Manuscript doesn't have any visible markings, so I'm not suggesting we use that, but would anyone object to me replacing p. 32 with p. 1 as the infobox image? The only problem I can see is that it's currently being used in the "Natural language" subsection. Tisnec ( talk) 01:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is a question for someone who knows more than I about ancient manuscripts -- the article states at least twice that the text is written in an unknown language, "left to right". If the language is unknown, how was it concluded that it reads left to right? The answer (if there is one) should probably be included in the article. Thanks, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! I haven't contributed to this article and have no in-depth knowledge about the topic, but I wanted to suggest a new source that I have come across:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)Since the article gives space to amateurs whose only notability stems from a mention in CNN, an article co-authored by Claire Bowern (an eminent historical linguist, executive editor of Diachronica) might have its merit for inclusion too, in spite of immediate negative reactions to it. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
A preprint of the article is here.
Of the review, here.
Both backed up on Wayback. — kwami ( talk) 17:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I figured I would give the interested followers a heads-up on this discovery [correction - possible enhancement to prior research/speculation]. I won't be be following up on this, but here is the link I found.
initial article I encountered, dated May 15, 2022. https://www.techexplorist.com/voynich-manuscript-code-cracked-bristol-academic/23202
The study it references. I think this has a paywall. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.15.214 ( talk) 20:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
There are citation needed tags going back to 2013 and 2017. I am going to remove the text associated with those tags, except in one case where there was a cn tag associated with every sentence preceding a sentence with a citation. In that case, the one cited sentence by itself doesn't make sense (i.e., I think someone was cn tagging indiscriminately).
I will save the diff here when I am done if someone would like to work on it.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Should John Dee be listed as possible author? 2600:8800:A86:9300:352E:2B4A:F354:79D7 ( talk) 06:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Aoidh removed a link to a blog (my blog) with the edit summary "(Blogs are not reliable sources)". This is of course true when it comes to refer to facts, but not to opinions. According to policy blogs can be used as sources for the opinions of specialists when they are written by "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The blog in question " http://nahuatlstudies.blogspot.com/" is written by me, and I am an established subject matter expert with a good deal of published work (not in "Voynich studies" but in Nahuatl) - and indeed the blog itself has been cited several times in peer reviewed publications. Now, I am not going to edit war to put in a likn to my own blog, which would of course be bad form, but I do encourage other editors to think about whether it is not a benefit to the reader to know that Tucker, Talbert and Janick's proposal of a nahuatl decipherment has been rejected by people who, unlike them, actually know what Nahuatl is. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an illustration with the following caption: "The first page includes two large red symbols, which have been compared to a Chinese-style book title, upside-down." I can't read the source for this, which may be in German, but in any event this is bizarre wording. "Book title"?? There is a passing resemblance to Han ideogram shapes, so if there were a coherent motivation, this might be claimed to be 大元 upside down. Except it really isn't; much more like the lower part of the second character only. Isn't it amazing how all of these theories are plausible in inverse proportion to how much you happen to know about the specifics. Suggestions? Should this be deleted, reworded, etc...? Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
For the time being I removed the illustration with the dodgy claim; if you look at the table of letters, you will notice that actually the supposed "Chinese style something-or-other" is more similar to the letter identified as 'x', upside down. Here's the removed text:
File:Voynich Manuscript (3).jpg|thumb|upright|The first page includes two large red symbols, which have been compared to a Chinese-style book title, upside-down. :ref name=Neidhart-2002-11-13:
The Neidhart reference link returns 403 Forbidden. Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you all absolutely sure that it isn’t from some extinct language, like one of the West Baltic languages? I am curious but I don’t know where to ask other than the Wikipedia discussion page 2601:197:780:72E0:0:0:0:1D07 ( talk) 22:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
"I meant in the sense of eg someone familiar with (extended) Latin alphabet (or the manusicript-timeframe equivalent) attempting to transcribe a text in a different script (Cyrillic, Korean etc) without comprehending the detail (eg some people 'cross their number 7s' others don't, or manuscript and print 'g')." It's still difficult to explain how those grammar features found in the VM crept in when they weren't in the original language and only a transcription, but no translation took place. If there was a translation, the question is which target language would have features like the ones observed now in the VM. -- Syzygy ( talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed this claim from the section on Gerald Cheshire:
As Alfonso and his army originated from Iberia and he was the one who replaced Latin by the local dialect as official language in nearby Naples in 1442(*1),
and as dialects of the southern italian peninsula are an amalgam of languages of the entire mediterranean area(*2), finding linguistic influences from a broad geographic area in a manuscript from the proposed time and place(*3) would not be unexpected.
References:
This has three references, which (partly) justify some of the factoids scraped into the early part of the sentence, but not its conclusion. There are various facts about the way in which the various dialects ("languages" for those with an army) of southern Italian include lots of loan words from various other places (as is true of pretty much any similar set of regional variants). But it looks as though the sentence is trying to justify as plausible Cheshire's mish-mash of anything he can find in a set of dictionaries. This does not follow: a dialect such as Siciliano, might include many words from Arabic. But a single writer does not sit down and make up a new dialect by plucking words at random from here and there.
The references are not really valid anyway: two are WP, and one is Cheshire himself. Imaginatorium ( talk) 12:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that some removals done here recently fall into a trap of "fact-checking": Some now removed text here pointed to standard literature, namely citing long established works on Proto-Romance language and medieval latin that contradict and invalidate some of the derogatory comments offered by other specialist in interviews and repeated here. The latterthus should bee seen as personal opinion of those persons. Wikipedia is not a platform for repeating derogatory comments like the ones in the Cheshire paragraph, without substantial factual or literature evidence, while at the same time suppressing arguments that support a theory, even if a majority considers it as fake. Just keep scientific controversy as what it is: controversial standpoints, each with arguments. 145.250.209.1 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it is worth, Cheshire has a further detailed publication https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006087
"Initially the language was thought to be an anachronistic or outdated form of proto-Romance, but further research has revealed the language to be the Medieval Iberian variant of Romance known as Galician-Portuguese (G-P), with the inclusion of some Latin, Greek, and occasional Arabic. The writing system is phonetic but is heavily abbreviated with enclitics, clitics, and plosives so that silent and junctural consonants and vowels have often become omitted altogether. Thus, the text was written in direct imitation of speech rather than obeying rules of spelling, grammar and punctuation – thus, it is a pronuncial writing system. In addition, Latin stock words and phrases are abbreviated to initial letters."
Keith Henson ( talk) 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
4000 year old board game has similar symbols to the book 72.73.115.87 ( talk) 20:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Yale University Digital Archive saves this Codex as "Codex Manuscript". Do any users oppose a page move to that article name? (I'll check back in a week) -- Sleyece ( talk) 14:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"Codex Manuscript" is the actual name of this workand the serial comma comparison is very much apples-to-oranges; for one, that article has been at Serial comma for eighteen years without a single RM discussing a move to Oxford comma. Further, there has been little to no discussion on that talk page about moving it to Oxford comma, but what little discussion there is indicates that the rationale for it being at its current title is because
Serial comma is much more widely used and recognised, not because
"Serial" is the ACTUAL name. That article is at its currently title because there is a WP:COMMONNAME argument for it being at that title; your proposed move here has no such basis. Even if you could provide evidence that
"Codex Manuscript" is the actual name of this work, that's not how we determine article titles on Wikipedia, per WP:COMMONNAME (see the examples listed). You cited WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT, but neither of those apply in any way to why the article is at it's current title or why it should be moved; calling it "Voynich manuscript" is not WP:SYNTH under any reading of that policy, as sources directly and unambiguously use that title to describe the work. - Aoidh ( talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's listed as "Codex Manuscript" in the the Yale archivesbut you haven't provided a source for that at any point, and that's ignoring the fact that even if that were true, per Wikipedia policy that is not a determinative factor in what the article's title is in any way. You are welcome to think that you are right, but Wikipedia policy very directly says otherwise; waiting until next year to bring up the same flawed argument will not change the outcome. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Roger Bacon Cipher Manuscript" was the name chosen by Voynich as a "marketing strategy". It soon also became known as "Voynich Cipher Manuscript", but eventually most if not all later sources until now have simplified it to "Voynich Manuscript". It's not authorship that determines WP:COMMONNAME, but usage in specialist and non-specialist sources. A cursory glance at the reference list might help. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In any event, the suggestion is ridiculous: "cipher manuscript" is simply a generic description. It might as well be titled "Ancient book". Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose any such move. Our job is to list the page at the title that's reflected in the preponderance of reliable sources written about the topic. They virtually all refer to it as the Voynich Manuscript. We don't change the title because a librarian decided to catalog it with a different title at Yale. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 01:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I won't be starting a controversial move debate at this time, as it would not be worth the effort per WP:CRITERIA. Thank you all for the input. -- Sleyece ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to add a sentence stating who I believe to be the author of the Voynich manuscript. I have stated this publicly on the Voynich Ninja forum. I added this sentence anonymously to this page, but I assume it has since been deleted. MarkRKnowles ( talk) 17:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
because it's so sad it was removed from Cultural Influences. The only other source I found for it was another wiki, which isn't considered reliable either. So it goes! https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/593:_Voynich_Manuscript — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredmeliorist ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Xover, I quite agree that our discussion from the Fringe noticeboard belongs here, and also that my solution of adding a qualifier to the term "writing system" is a bit kludgy. But as I mentioned, I think it is important as non-language is still a possibility floating in the reliable sources, if you will. If you can think of a more euphonious way to put it, I am all ears! Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The introduction to the timeline speaks of colors. I see none. Kdammers ( talk) 13:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The article says that also Voynich himself may be the author, but it also says that there are many evidences the manuscript existed before Voynich birth. Isn't this an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab1can ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The article and the timeline claim that the manuscript was owned by Rudolf II for a while. However, as far as I know, that was only a claim that "Dr. Raphael" (believed to be
Raphael Sobiehrd-Mnishovsky) made to Marci, as reported in the 1665/1666 letter.
There is no reason to trust that claim, especially considering that he also claimed that the author was believed to be Roger Bacon, and that Marci himself noted that he was "suspending his judgement" on the matter. Rudolf II abdicated in 1611 and died in 1612, and Raphael was born in 1580 and died in 1644. Thus Marci was reporting something that Raphael told him more than 21 years earlier, about a book that Rudolf purchased at least 54 years before the letter.
(And there are even those who claim that
Marci's 1665 letter to Kircher was a forgery by Wilfrid Voynich...)
So, unless more independent evidence has been found in recent years, I propose changing the mentions of Rudolf's ownership from fact to mere rumour...
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
06:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"Rudolf II abdicated in 1611 and died in 1612, and Raphael was born in 1580 and died in 1644. Thus Marci was reporting something that Raphael told him more than 21 years earlier, about a book that Rudolf purchased at least 54 years before the letter."
And? Most history bools were written decades if not centuries after the fact. Dr. Raphael was a cryptographer who worked under Rudolf II, which makes the "rumor" even more plausible.
ConfusedEnoch ( talk) 06:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this edit is undue weight. I have reverted it, so we can discuss it here.
1) Academia dot edu formats its articles like a journal would, but it is not a journal. It's a social publishing platform like Medium.com. Such publications are not normally usable as sources on Wikipedia. (per WP:RSSELF)
2) Everyone involved in this source is an amateur, (Like Cheshire himself.) so it should not be used to imply that he has support within academia.
2b) Specifically, the primary authors are : A highschool student and his science teacher. (There are also a handful of other co-authors with no listed credentials. Probably classmates.)
ApLundell ( talk) 20:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The chinese Artist Xu Bing had created a book, which was made from 4000 meaningless ´chinese´ symbols: A Book from the Sky.
This is an example, to show that books might exist - with a meaningless content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:736:819:65E7:7FC:77CE:80CE ( talk) 15:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article does also include a statement that the manuscript was written using a "possibly meaningless writing system." The debate about this question is still ongoing. Therefore I would suggest a more neutral start.
Note: I'm not neutral in this matter. I support the hypothesis that the text is meaningless and that the intention behind the writing system is indeed to write something meaningless. Together with Andreas Schinner I have recently published a paper about the Voynich manuscript. In this paper we are arguing: "Beyond this coarse classification several potentially promising cross-overs are conceivable, e.g., the usage of 'random' strings as container for steganography; or the VMS could be a medieval scholar’s 'notebook', written in an individual combination of cipher and shorthand. Why are we then convinced that the hoax hypothesis can be the only correct interpretation of the VMS? Most likely, it is impossible to devise an exact mathematical proof that an arbitrary set of strings is truly meaningless, or not. This would involve a general method to compute upper boundaries to the Kolmogorov complexity. However, in the case of the VMS many statistical properties have been uncovered that, in their entirety, are incompatible with any known human language." (see Timm & Schinner p. 16; URL: https://www.kereti.de/pdf/TTAS.pdf) Kadmos ( talk) 20:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
A sphynx is a kind of cat: Sphynx cat -- Syzygy ( talk) 08:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Alisa Gladyseva recently claims to have deciphered the whole manuscript, as "written in medieval Castellano and its dialect, using the Latin, old-French, and old Catalan names of flowers". I mention this information simply as having found it in ResearchGate. Errantius ( talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
But according to Alisa Gladyseva:"Because the deciphered text of the Voynich manuscript is easy to read and as a result, it is possible plagiarism, secondary sources are not available due to copyright law and restrictions on preprints of scientific journals." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuscriptVoynich ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course, the bursa pastoris has been known since medieval times. See the scientific work of MICHAEL S. DEFELICE "Shepherd's-purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic.", Weed Technology, 15 (4), 892-895, (October 1, 2001).
According to the book THE DECIPHERING THE WHOLE TEXT OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT BY ALISA GLADYŠEVA, [3] Chapter 7.1 THE COMPLETE LIST OF ALL THE BOTANICAL NAMES DETERMINATED IN THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT WITH LATIN TAXONOMY, VERNACULAR BOTANICAL NAMES AND LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGIN OF NOMENCLATURES WITH THEIR SOURCES IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD. All botanical names that have been identified in the Voynich Manuscript have been deciphered and read in the very text of the Voynich Manuscript. It is the only research of the Voynich Manuscript that is primarily and generally based on its linguistic source – the lexicology, but not on the analysis of phytomorphs’ similarities with herbarium specimens that were always made by other researchers ( J. Janick, A.O. Tucker, 2017; Stephen Bax, 2014) that led to wrong encompassing of plant species due to difficulty of determination. Therefore, less than 10 percent of plants that were determined by other researchers are correct. Some of the researchers for e.g. Gerard Cheshire (G. Cheshire, 2019), even suggested that there are no botanical names at the whole Voynich manuscript due to their absence in the medieval period, therefore his research results are double incorrect. Important that these innovative research results are succesfull. All 131 plants have been deciphered. pages 139-172 Information for publishers and editors of the scientific journals, the author is open to publish any chapter of "Decoding the whole text of the Voynich manuscript by Alisa Gladyseva".
This means that Alisa Gladysseva not only found all 131 plant names, but also proved “THE ORIGIN OF NOMENCLATURES WITH THEIR SOURCES IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD”.
Since the submission of scientific articles for publication in scientific journals must not have been previously published nor has it been submitted for consideration by any other journal, the information on the content of some chapters is omitted in the preview of this book "Decoding the whole text of the Voynich manuscript by Alisa Gladyseva".
According to ANY scientific journal, it is impossible to prepublish a scientific work, before its publishing. Alisa Gladyseva is in the process of publication, and due to the coronavirus, some research journals are out of print since 2019. She is looking for scientific journals to publish various articles (linguistic, historical) on the deciphering of the full text of the Voynich manuscript. [4] . For now it is absolutely true that Alisa Gladyseva has read marginalia of months and other marginalia in medieval Galician. See her scientific article [5] At first it is important to READ Alisa Gladyseva's decipherment, because she really deciphered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuscriptVoynich ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
You are wrong User: Syzygy, about the shepherd's purse, do you mean linnean ?? If you cannot read the research paper by MICHAEL S. DEFLIS "Shepherd's Wallet, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic.", Weed Technology, 15 (4), 892-895, (October 1, 2001), where it is written, that Bursa pastoris was known as bursa pastoris in the Middle Ages. So, the history of plants does not interest you, why do you need a transcript and a translation of the Voynich manuscript? (You don't know plant history, Latin and medieval Galician languages as well.)
Alisa Gladiseva is a scientist, that is, not a populizer for those who do not eager for knowledge, she is still in research.
As for me Cryptologia is not the best place for publishing, in reason of 1 year period of acceptance. There are existing RELIABLE PRIMARY sources, f.eg. where Alisa Gladyseva has read marginalia of months and other marginalia in medieval Galician.: «ANALYSIS CODING ALGORITHM WITH THE KNOWN IN MEDIEVAL PERIOD METHODS OF CIPHERING AND RESULTS OF THE UNENCRYPTED MARGINALIA OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT.» Manuscrito de Voynich - Análisis del algoritmo de codificación con los métodos de cifrado conocidos en la época medieval y resultados de las marginalias que no fueron encriptadas.January 2020Revista Científica Arbitrada de la Fundación MenteClara 5 DOI: 10.32351/rca.v5.128 https://fundacionmenteclara.org.ar/revista/index.php/RCA/article/view/128 DECIPHERING THE WHOLE TEXT OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT BY ALISA GLADYŠEVA. The linguistic basis of the text, index and analysis. October 2020 Edition: THE 1 STPublisher: ALISA GLADYŠEVA Editor: GG ISBN: ISBN: 978-609-475-419-7 it is absolutely true that Alisa Gladyseva has read marginalia of months and other marginalia in medieval Galician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManuscriptVoynich ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
ːːFor the recordː No plausible claim for any immediate changes to the article has been made here. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss such changes, not to discuss ongoing or unpublished research. It's amazing if we can all finally read the Voynich manuscript soon, and rest assuredː That day (or week), the article here will include that important fact, and probably, eventually, reduce a lot of the content now in the article to a much briefer summary of failed attempts and speculations. Until that day, there is no need or relevance in expanding this talk section any further.-- Nø ( talk) 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
ːːI've added a reflist to this section -- Thereisnous ( talk) 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help); External link in |ref=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
I've tried to find a transcription published under Creative Commons (or similar) license, but without success.
Such transcription would be a valuable contribution to the article (and to the decipherment of the manuscript).
Dear fellow editors, have you encountered such a free transcription? -- Thereisnous ( talk) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The 2018 Crytech videogame Hunt Showdown has a library of two lore books within it. Some of the articles (i.e. Liber de Monstrorvm/armored/entry 2) are said to be translated from Voynich. This is likely a reference to the unique language used in the manuscript, but I am unsure if it is too vague to be considered a cultural influence reference point. 69.174.157.101 ( talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Usually the image in the infobox on a book is the cover of the first edition; right now the image here is page 32. The cover of the Voynich Manuscript doesn't have any visible markings, so I'm not suggesting we use that, but would anyone object to me replacing p. 32 with p. 1 as the infobox image? The only problem I can see is that it's currently being used in the "Natural language" subsection. Tisnec ( talk) 01:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is a question for someone who knows more than I about ancient manuscripts -- the article states at least twice that the text is written in an unknown language, "left to right". If the language is unknown, how was it concluded that it reads left to right? The answer (if there is one) should probably be included in the article. Thanks, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! I haven't contributed to this article and have no in-depth knowledge about the topic, but I wanted to suggest a new source that I have come across:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)Since the article gives space to amateurs whose only notability stems from a mention in CNN, an article co-authored by Claire Bowern (an eminent historical linguist, executive editor of Diachronica) might have its merit for inclusion too, in spite of immediate negative reactions to it. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
A preprint of the article is here.
Of the review, here.
Both backed up on Wayback. — kwami ( talk) 17:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I figured I would give the interested followers a heads-up on this discovery [correction - possible enhancement to prior research/speculation]. I won't be be following up on this, but here is the link I found.
initial article I encountered, dated May 15, 2022. https://www.techexplorist.com/voynich-manuscript-code-cracked-bristol-academic/23202
The study it references. I think this has a paywall. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.15.214 ( talk) 20:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
There are citation needed tags going back to 2013 and 2017. I am going to remove the text associated with those tags, except in one case where there was a cn tag associated with every sentence preceding a sentence with a citation. In that case, the one cited sentence by itself doesn't make sense (i.e., I think someone was cn tagging indiscriminately).
I will save the diff here when I am done if someone would like to work on it.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Should John Dee be listed as possible author? 2600:8800:A86:9300:352E:2B4A:F354:79D7 ( talk) 06:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Aoidh removed a link to a blog (my blog) with the edit summary "(Blogs are not reliable sources)". This is of course true when it comes to refer to facts, but not to opinions. According to policy blogs can be used as sources for the opinions of specialists when they are written by "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The blog in question " http://nahuatlstudies.blogspot.com/" is written by me, and I am an established subject matter expert with a good deal of published work (not in "Voynich studies" but in Nahuatl) - and indeed the blog itself has been cited several times in peer reviewed publications. Now, I am not going to edit war to put in a likn to my own blog, which would of course be bad form, but I do encourage other editors to think about whether it is not a benefit to the reader to know that Tucker, Talbert and Janick's proposal of a nahuatl decipherment has been rejected by people who, unlike them, actually know what Nahuatl is. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an illustration with the following caption: "The first page includes two large red symbols, which have been compared to a Chinese-style book title, upside-down." I can't read the source for this, which may be in German, but in any event this is bizarre wording. "Book title"?? There is a passing resemblance to Han ideogram shapes, so if there were a coherent motivation, this might be claimed to be 大元 upside down. Except it really isn't; much more like the lower part of the second character only. Isn't it amazing how all of these theories are plausible in inverse proportion to how much you happen to know about the specifics. Suggestions? Should this be deleted, reworded, etc...? Imaginatorium ( talk) 05:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
For the time being I removed the illustration with the dodgy claim; if you look at the table of letters, you will notice that actually the supposed "Chinese style something-or-other" is more similar to the letter identified as 'x', upside down. Here's the removed text:
File:Voynich Manuscript (3).jpg|thumb|upright|The first page includes two large red symbols, which have been compared to a Chinese-style book title, upside-down. :ref name=Neidhart-2002-11-13:
The Neidhart reference link returns 403 Forbidden. Imaginatorium ( talk) 08:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you all absolutely sure that it isn’t from some extinct language, like one of the West Baltic languages? I am curious but I don’t know where to ask other than the Wikipedia discussion page 2601:197:780:72E0:0:0:0:1D07 ( talk) 22:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
"I meant in the sense of eg someone familiar with (extended) Latin alphabet (or the manusicript-timeframe equivalent) attempting to transcribe a text in a different script (Cyrillic, Korean etc) without comprehending the detail (eg some people 'cross their number 7s' others don't, or manuscript and print 'g')." It's still difficult to explain how those grammar features found in the VM crept in when they weren't in the original language and only a transcription, but no translation took place. If there was a translation, the question is which target language would have features like the ones observed now in the VM. -- Syzygy ( talk) 12:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed this claim from the section on Gerald Cheshire:
As Alfonso and his army originated from Iberia and he was the one who replaced Latin by the local dialect as official language in nearby Naples in 1442(*1),
and as dialects of the southern italian peninsula are an amalgam of languages of the entire mediterranean area(*2), finding linguistic influences from a broad geographic area in a manuscript from the proposed time and place(*3) would not be unexpected.
References:
This has three references, which (partly) justify some of the factoids scraped into the early part of the sentence, but not its conclusion. There are various facts about the way in which the various dialects ("languages" for those with an army) of southern Italian include lots of loan words from various other places (as is true of pretty much any similar set of regional variants). But it looks as though the sentence is trying to justify as plausible Cheshire's mish-mash of anything he can find in a set of dictionaries. This does not follow: a dialect such as Siciliano, might include many words from Arabic. But a single writer does not sit down and make up a new dialect by plucking words at random from here and there.
The references are not really valid anyway: two are WP, and one is Cheshire himself. Imaginatorium ( talk) 12:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that some removals done here recently fall into a trap of "fact-checking": Some now removed text here pointed to standard literature, namely citing long established works on Proto-Romance language and medieval latin that contradict and invalidate some of the derogatory comments offered by other specialist in interviews and repeated here. The latterthus should bee seen as personal opinion of those persons. Wikipedia is not a platform for repeating derogatory comments like the ones in the Cheshire paragraph, without substantial factual or literature evidence, while at the same time suppressing arguments that support a theory, even if a majority considers it as fake. Just keep scientific controversy as what it is: controversial standpoints, each with arguments. 145.250.209.1 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it is worth, Cheshire has a further detailed publication https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006087
"Initially the language was thought to be an anachronistic or outdated form of proto-Romance, but further research has revealed the language to be the Medieval Iberian variant of Romance known as Galician-Portuguese (G-P), with the inclusion of some Latin, Greek, and occasional Arabic. The writing system is phonetic but is heavily abbreviated with enclitics, clitics, and plosives so that silent and junctural consonants and vowels have often become omitted altogether. Thus, the text was written in direct imitation of speech rather than obeying rules of spelling, grammar and punctuation – thus, it is a pronuncial writing system. In addition, Latin stock words and phrases are abbreviated to initial letters."
Keith Henson ( talk) 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
4000 year old board game has similar symbols to the book 72.73.115.87 ( talk) 20:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Yale University Digital Archive saves this Codex as "Codex Manuscript". Do any users oppose a page move to that article name? (I'll check back in a week) -- Sleyece ( talk) 14:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"Codex Manuscript" is the actual name of this workand the serial comma comparison is very much apples-to-oranges; for one, that article has been at Serial comma for eighteen years without a single RM discussing a move to Oxford comma. Further, there has been little to no discussion on that talk page about moving it to Oxford comma, but what little discussion there is indicates that the rationale for it being at its current title is because
Serial comma is much more widely used and recognised, not because
"Serial" is the ACTUAL name. That article is at its currently title because there is a WP:COMMONNAME argument for it being at that title; your proposed move here has no such basis. Even if you could provide evidence that
"Codex Manuscript" is the actual name of this work, that's not how we determine article titles on Wikipedia, per WP:COMMONNAME (see the examples listed). You cited WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT, but neither of those apply in any way to why the article is at it's current title or why it should be moved; calling it "Voynich manuscript" is not WP:SYNTH under any reading of that policy, as sources directly and unambiguously use that title to describe the work. - Aoidh ( talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's listed as "Codex Manuscript" in the the Yale archivesbut you haven't provided a source for that at any point, and that's ignoring the fact that even if that were true, per Wikipedia policy that is not a determinative factor in what the article's title is in any way. You are welcome to think that you are right, but Wikipedia policy very directly says otherwise; waiting until next year to bring up the same flawed argument will not change the outcome. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Roger Bacon Cipher Manuscript" was the name chosen by Voynich as a "marketing strategy". It soon also became known as "Voynich Cipher Manuscript", but eventually most if not all later sources until now have simplified it to "Voynich Manuscript". It's not authorship that determines WP:COMMONNAME, but usage in specialist and non-specialist sources. A cursory glance at the reference list might help. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In any event, the suggestion is ridiculous: "cipher manuscript" is simply a generic description. It might as well be titled "Ancient book". Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose any such move. Our job is to list the page at the title that's reflected in the preponderance of reliable sources written about the topic. They virtually all refer to it as the Voynich Manuscript. We don't change the title because a librarian decided to catalog it with a different title at Yale. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 01:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I won't be starting a controversial move debate at this time, as it would not be worth the effort per WP:CRITERIA. Thank you all for the input. -- Sleyece ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I want to add a sentence stating who I believe to be the author of the Voynich manuscript. I have stated this publicly on the Voynich Ninja forum. I added this sentence anonymously to this page, but I assume it has since been deleted. MarkRKnowles ( talk) 17:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
because it's so sad it was removed from Cultural Influences. The only other source I found for it was another wiki, which isn't considered reliable either. So it goes! https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/593:_Voynich_Manuscript — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiredmeliorist ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Xover, I quite agree that our discussion from the Fringe noticeboard belongs here, and also that my solution of adding a qualifier to the term "writing system" is a bit kludgy. But as I mentioned, I think it is important as non-language is still a possibility floating in the reliable sources, if you will. If you can think of a more euphonious way to put it, I am all ears! Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)