The Proof

There are some people here requesting a quasi cryptographic proof of the “Arabic solution”.

1. Randomly chosen items (within the entire Manuscript) can be translated into Arabic words  (most likely).

There is no stronger proof.

2. Words connected with one another resulting in an invalid item can be separated and the parts can be translated meaningfully.

As said elsewhere, there appear throughout the manuscript words connected with one another in a way which is not consistent with the Arabic language. This is due to the fact that this language has at least 3 different writing forms for its characters, depending on the position of the character in a word.
When such word combinations are translated out of Arabic the result is, at most, meaningless.

So, let us now assume that such a “strange” word is to be taken as encrypted, a cryptogram, then a successful decryption, by isolating exactly two words in logical meaningful sequence, must represent a proof, right?

Examples from f57v, innermost circle:
“omotanab” –> (no meaning), but “omotan ab” –> “stronger father”
“anthalty” –> (no meaning), but “an thalty” –> “if/that remained”

Now, one could counter that these examples are coincidences. That is however not the case. Actually, all cases of this type, that we’ve encountered, demonstrate this behaviour.

Can there possibly be other explanations?

Advertisements

3 Responses to “The Proof”

  1. readingvoynich July 25, 2013 at 11:33 #

    Hello!
    Can you suggest an Arabic dictionary with a transcription using the Latin alphabet?
    Ruby

    • jodavoyar July 25, 2013 at 16:24 #

      Ruby, I don’t know of any printed dictionary of that kind, obviously 1.there does not exist a general interest for it, 2. there is no common single format for conversion.

      As part of our VMs dictionary project, we provide internally an romanized Abjad value of each word, based on a 3rd party conversion software, here is an excerpt: wthrh وطهره .wTarh. and cleansed ydyty يذيتي .yTeety. my mistake ymyy يميي .ymeey. oh my god alan ألان .olon. now aryha اريحا .arih. Jericho alwty الوتي .olwety. and low

      Joachim.

  2. R.K. August 2, 2013 at 14:02 #

    Right, Google translate is somehow able to decipher a 600 year old book. Sure. Here’s a clue for you. If you go to Google translate, set the incoming language as Arabic and then, smash your hand on the keyboard, it’s going to come up with suggestions as to what you meant to type and each time you do this it will “most likely” present a logical set of words that seem to make sense. By repeating this process multiple times I propose that the entire Koran could be reproduced by smashing your fist on a keyboard and entering the results into Google translate. Therefore, Google is Muhammad! THERE IS NO STRONGER PROOF!!!! Yes there is, translate the whole book.

    Here, you want “proof”? I took the first line of your translation:

    dawys.ythal.an.amarh.whol.whony.emenes.y.thon.wholty

    stuffed it into Google translate with the incoming language as French, Clicked on the ‘did you mean’ and I got this:

    dways ythal year Amarh whol why are you taking tuna Whooty.

    Obviously it’s nonsense but Google made sense of some of it. I’m sure if I kept tinkering with the letters I could get a complete sentence out of it that translated into something close to what I want. Google translate is no proof of anything.

    Furthermore, claiming that the pictures on the page have nothing to do with the text or even more unbelievable, that they’re a distraction, is just… ignorant. The images were drawn BEFORE the text was written, not after. If, as you claim, this was designed to disguise the book then there would be no need for the pictures as the encryption would do this sufficiently. And even more ludicrous is your supposition that the astrological symbols are a game board. What the hell would a game board be doing in an encrypted Arabic religious text?

    While I’m not discounting the fact that the Voynich may very well be written in Arabic, your ‘theories’ and ‘translation’ are just another example of someone trying to make the Voynich fit their own personal agenda. I’ll come back to your site when you open your mind to the possibilities instead of forcing them to fit your ‘facts.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: