2010年12月19日

John Stojko's translation (Letters to God's Eye)

1998/4/20, posted by John Stojko

f2v in Voynich

The Voynich manuscript is written in one language v Ukrainian, according to my decipherment. The alphabet consists of consonants only and is written from left to right. It is written not by one person but by many. Bellow is given original writing in English alphabet and than translated to English language.

I will divide the original writing into 6 section separated by empty spaces. The voynich cipher is printed in Caps letters and the added vowels are in low letters.

1st phrase 5 letter - T W W ZH J = Te Wy WyZHyJe
2nd phrase 7 letter - P N W SCH P W R = PoNoWe SCHo Po WiRy.
3rd ? 11 ? - W S T ZH J W K B Z J = WiSTe BoZHyJ, Wy u oKo
BoZiu (or BoZJu)
4th ? 3 ? - P W R = PoWiRe.
5th ? 4 ? - K B Z R = oKo oBZyRa
6th ? 5 ? - D N ST S = oDNoST Siu. (I use ?iu| to soften
prenounciation)


1. Te wy wyzhyje I ponowe scho po wiry. Wiste bozhyj, wy u Oko Boziu powire. Oko obzyra odnost siu.
2. Tupezh ty peshe. Odnowa odnowyly I siu wist powi. Ale wy omane de wistysh. Powi Ori Oko bozhyje.
3. Wy shto pyshe po wiri? Ladno se powily, opowi Kosa i powi Oko Bozia. Popustu se Oko bozhyje.
4. Odnowu powolaw panowi Ori I opowi Oko bozhyje.
5. Te powiru, dnes Oko bozhe zhyje. Popyta se. De odne nashe Oko wire, powilo Oko bozhyje.
6. Oko wiru opowilo po wiry. Powily ta unowyly I pyshu. Puste se Oko bozhyje. Wy shto powire po baju.
7. Oko bozhyje opowist panusi. Se wy shto omynash? Powi ty unowo de po Medu u poru pan bozhyj.
8. Powi to win duma po wiry? Ponowyly, powily I khwalyw Kosu.

(English translation)
1. That you outlive and renew what is according to the believe. The god#s is informing, you will believe in Oko Boziu (baby God). Oko is looking for this unity.
2. You are writing stupidly. Again we renewed and I am telling this news. But you will deceive where you are informing. The God#s Oko will inform Ora.
3. What are you writing in believe? You made beautiful statement, will explain Kosa and Oko Bozia will disclose. Oko of god, this is nonsense (empty saying).
4. Again I am calling to Mr. Ora. Oko of god will explain.
5. That I believe, today Oko of God is alive. The question is this. Where is one of ours Oko#s believe Oko of God told
6. Oko explained religion faithfully. We told than renewed and now I am writing. Oko of God, this is nonsense. Are you believing what you been told?
7. Oko of God will explain to Miss. What are you avoiding? Tell me again, where after Median on time will be Mr. God#s?
8. Tell me that he is thinking what he believes. You renewed, announced and praised Kosa.


1998/4/24, posted by Jorge Stolfi


If I got it right, this is John Stojko's proposed decryption,
from basic EVA to vowel-less old Ukranian:

--- eva2ukr.sed ------------------------------------------
# Basic EVA to Ukrainian, per John Stojko and Karl Kluge
s/cth/PT/g
s/ckh/PT/g
s/iin/HYJE/g
s/in/Z/g
s/ir/ZR/g
s/ch/P/g
s/sh/DN/g
# Strings of "e"s are ambiguous, make a guess:
s/eeee/MM/g
s/eee/MN/g
s/ee/M/g
s/e/N/g
s/o/W/g
s/y/S/g
s/d/K/g
s/l/L/g
s/t/T/g
s/k/T/g
s/a/B/g
s/q/S/g
s/r/R/g
s/s/D/g
s/p/SCHO/g
----------------------------------------------------------


あほか、自由に母音を加えていいのだったら、ヴォイニッチが英語で書かれていると証明できるわと言っています。

Let's try this mapping on the first paragraph of page f2v:

1 kooiin cheo pchor otaiin odain chor dair shty
2 kcho kchy sho shol qotsho loeees qoty chor daiin
3 otchy chor lshy chol chody shodain chcthy daiin
4 sho cholo cheor chodaiin

We get

1 STTY NMT PNTING TSLY TDLV NTING DLK WSR
2 SNT SNR WT WTTH CTSWT THTBMF CTSR NTING DLY
3 TSNR NTING THWR NTTH NTDR WTDLV NNSR DLY
4 WT NTTHT NMTING NTDLY

1 STTY NMT PNTING TSLY TDLV NTING - DLK WSR -
Satiate ye no mete pain eating. To soul ye tied love uniting: do like a wise or

2 SNT SNR WT WTTH CTSWT THTBMF CTSR - NTING DLY -
saint. Son, are we to wait the acts, we too? That bum --- if cats are uniting, delay!

3 TSNR NTING THWR NTTH NTDR WTDLV - NNSR DLY -
Tease Nero on tieing the war -- not thee, not, dear awaited love. In no soiree delay!

4 WT NTTHT NMTING NTDLY =
I wait on thee, to in mating united lay.

1999/9/8, posted by Mark Perakh

Come on, guys. I was sure the Stoyko's claim was a joke. Is Stoyko serious? Even though it is not very relevant, I was born in the Ukraine and Ukrainian is one of my two mother tongues (the other is Russian). The Khazar empire ceased to exist about the ad 950. Ukrainian language separated from the Old Slavic which was also the precursor of Russian and Belorussian, only a couple of centuries later. Most of the territory which now is Eastern Ukraine was a part of Khazar empire, but since the middle of 10th century became the domain of Scandinavian Rus with the capital in Kiev, built on the spot where earlier existed a Khazar rural hamlet. There no chance whatsoever that VMs was written in Ukrainian and contains a correspondence between some fictititous ruler of Ukraine and a Khazar king. It is a historical nonsense. Sorry for being blunt.
posted by ぶらたん at 11:54| Comment(0) | 解読者

2010年11月24日

VMS scholarship

1995/10/7, posted by Jim Reeds

For some odd reason, for more than 60 years members of the cryptographic branches of the American secret intelligence agencies have been interested in the VMS.

John Manly, U of Chicago Chaucer expert; debunked Newbold in 1930's. (He was a World War I code breaker and friend of Friedman's; hence on this list.)

W. F. Friedman, became interested in VMS in 1930's, worked on it off & on the rest of his life (into the 1960's) Started the "First Study Group" 1944-46 and the "Second Study Group", 1962.

John Tiltman, British code breaking friend of Friedman, seduced in the 1950's; wrote a survey paper in the late 1960's.

Prescott Currier, 1930's-1960's navy code breaker, member of Second Study Group, discovered "hand A" and "hand B" in 1970's; main speaker at 1976 symposium.

M. E. D'Imperio, National Security Agency, organized 1976 symposium on VMS, wrote a book in 1976 surveying all known progress to date.

R. Brumbaugh, 1940's Army code breaker, might have heard about VMS from members of First Study Group, later history professor at Yale; wrote a "the solution is that there is no solution" book in 1976. (I spoke with his World War 2 boss, who was a member of the FSG; he could not recall if Brumbaugh was a FSG member.)

Bennett, friend of Brumbaugh's; engineering professor at Yale, used VMS as an example in a textbook.

Father T. Petersen, a Catholic priest, who worked on the VMS between the 1930's and 1960's, who became friends with Friedman and Tiltman. He made a complete transcription and index of words of the VMS; alas that he lived before the era of personal computers!
posted by ぶらたん at 16:39| Comment(0) | 解読者

2010年07月17日

ブランボー

1992/1/3, posted by Robert Firth, quoting from D'Imperio's book

Brumbaugh

This is a critical claim, for if it is true, the MS is indeed largely a forgery. Brumbaugh's cypher is pretty simple, but be warned that I am depending on D'Imperio's reconstruction, since Brumbaugh's own articles don't give full information. In brief, the decoding process is this: each Voynich symbol stands for one of the digits 1 to 9, and there are about three alternatives for each digit, to obfuscate. Each digit, in turn, stands for one of three possible letters of the roman alphabet, take your pick. The result, when you pick wisely, is intelligible dog-latin, ie latin much simplified and with the inflections largely replaced by the common ending -US.
The encoding process, of course, is the reverse: collapse the plain text into a sequence of digits, and write the sequence in Voynich, with appropriate alternation rules to ensure that each symbol gets used a decent number of times.
Here is an example of a decoded word

12127339
ABABGCCI
JKJKPLLZ
VRVRYWWus

showing the digit sequence and the three possible choices for each digit. Note: this is given on p37 of D'Imperio in a form that cannot be reconciled with the tables in her Fig 26. I have changed it to make it consistent. Note also that -us is encoded by one symbol, the digit 9 (one of whose Voynich symbols is also "9").
Simple mathematics tells us that there are 3^8 or 6561 possible decipherments of this word. Brumbaugh chooses "ARABYCCUS", which is passable dog-latin for "arabiclike". And, indeed, there are very few choices that lead to pronounceable words. Brumbaugh's critical argument is this: that, in spite of this ambiguity, one who understands what the plain text is about can indeed read the cypher text and comprehend it. I propose to test that by an experiment. Here is a familiar latin phrase in the Brumbaugh code, with the possible decodes beneath it:

5619 6246 45336284
EFAI FBDF DECCFBHD
NOJZ OKMO MNLLOKQM
XTVus TRST SXWWTRUS

Did you read the phrase? If so, Brumbaugh's argument is at least partially confirmed.

Now, here is the entire encode/decode box, from D'Imperio:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A B C D E F G H I
J K L M N O P Q Z
V R W S X T Y U us

My first comment, is that if this is meant as a device to encode latin plain text, it's a pretty bad one. Maybe we need to distinguish I and J, though most authors didn't, but we surely don't need both U and V. After all, whoever wrote the signature numbers didn't bother to distinguish. Then, why have one symbol for -us but not one for qu-? And, if the purpose is to encode latin, why have K and W at all? Finally, assigning the Voynich symbol "9" to -us is really stupid, since that is already a well-known shorthand symbol for the same ending. And given that this supposed -us is one of the most common features of the text, the choice of "9" as the cypher symbol makes no more sense that choosing a substitution cypher for english that encodes 'e' as "E". Doctor Dee's double bluff? Far-fetched, I think.

Secondly, while it is probable that the inflection structure of any underlying language has been simplified, I doubt very much that any educated person would "simplify" latin by making every noun end in -us. Latin has been deliberately simplified at least twice, and has simplified itself many more times in the historical evolution of the romance languages, and as far as I know in every case the simplification process discarded the -us ending, usually for something derived from the dative or ablative case.

And my final thought was this: Brumbaugh in his deciperment is violating his own key assumption, for he is a reader who does NOT know what the underlying text is about. That led me to another experiment, where I tried to apply his decoding rules myself. Here is the digit sequence and the decode

676517 14665 28379 851 581 84 46
FGFEAG ADFFE BHCGI HEA EHA HD DG
OPONJP JMOON KQLPZ QNJ NQJ QM MO
TYTXVY VSTTX RUVWusUXV XUV US ST

Which I read, allowing myself similar latitude as did Brumbaugh in respect of contractions and simplicications:

OP[um] TE AG[e]; AMO TE BULGUS; UNA EQU[i] US[um] DO
"Do ye the work; I love you, ye Bogomil;
I give to one [woman] the use of a horse!"

Which proves, perhaps, that the Voynich MS is indeed part of a secret kinky Cathar cult?

Not quite. You see, the original digit sequence is not taken from the MS; it is taken from the rightmost column of a random page of my table of seven-figure logarithms, using spaces and zeros to divide the groups. Which proves rather, I think, that the Brumbaugh method does not recover the underlying text; the meaning is inserted by the ingenuity of the decipherer, and any text whatever may be so "deciphered".
posted by ぶらたん at 13:43| Comment(0) | 解読者

ストロング

1992/1/3, posted by Robert Firth, quoting from D'Imperio's book

Strong

This suffers, in my view, from the same defects as Newbold: the cypher is too complex, and the recovered text is not credible.
posted by ぶらたん at 13:40| Comment(0) | 解読者

フィーリー

1992/1/3, posted by Robert Firth, quoting from D'Imperio's book

Feely

He at least realised that, if the plain text is latin, it would be mediaeval latin. He seems to have started out with conventional "gold bug" analysis - letter and word counts, both on the Voynich MS and on Roger Bacon's works. As far as I can tell, he got nowhere.
His next attempt was based on guessing the individual words that labelled the drawings. This is not easy, for it implies guessing first the language, then the meaning of the drawing, and finally the word labelling it. So, even if the text is latin, and the drawing is of a poppy, is the text "poppy" or "to induce sleep" or "for headaches"? In my view, his guesses were pretty much wrong, and the proof is that the keys they provide don't unlock the text with any degree of credibility.
posted by ぶらたん at 13:37| Comment(0) | 解読者

ニューボールド

1992/1/3, posted by Robert Firth, quoting from D'Imperio's book

Newbold

I agree with Manly and D'Imperio that the decipherment is
incredible. The proposed means of encoding is by micro
symbols visible only under the microscope. The proposed
decipherment contains sufficient leeway that almost
anything can be read into any text. Nuff said.
posted by ぶらたん at 13:34| Comment(0) | 解読者
HPへ戻る