I had mentioned that formulating an opinion on whether or not the VMS is natural language is (for me at least) a matter of examining the text itself.  Here are a couple of things that require explanation.

 

By my count there are 40,715 words in the VMS, including labels.  The VMS contains 9,905 unique words, so if it is language, this is a modest vocabulary.  On closer examination, it is revealed that 7,120 of the 9,905 words occur only once, and 1,029 occur only twice.  This means that 82.27% of the Voynich words occur two times or less throughout the entire manuscript.  Disregarding the labels doesn't move this more than a percentage, so what kind of language could create these statistics?  (Notably, this figure is over 50% for the herbal pages, but increases dramatically when the VMS is taken as a whole).

 

Another problem that crops up is the "spelling" of the words themselves.  Taking the herbal-a and herbal-b pages as example, since we can assume they share subject matter to a degree, why is it then, that there is no {c89} suffix in the herbal-a and there is no more than a handful of the {c9} suffix in the herbal-b? 

 

I won't bore you with lengthy statistics on any of this, I'll let you do your own work, but the problem doesn't end with a single set of suffixes.  We could say that the {c9/c89} problem was attributable to two scribes, one with a different choice of spelling for the words in question.  Why however, does each particular Voynich section show widely different statistics for prefix, "root", and suffix usage across the board, and why do these choices sometimes change in the middle of a page?  If natural language, none of that can be attributed to different scribes, especially those oddities that occur in the middle of pages written in the same hand.

 

You can generally break the VMS down into sets of prefix, "root", suffix, though many words won't be pigeon-holed, but then you're faced with another problem.  The root can stand alone as a word, the prefix can stand alone as a word, and the suffix can stand alone as a word.  As example, there are 166 instances where the word is "4o", so how can this be both a prefix and word in its own right?  Better question, how can every prefix and suffix also be a complete word?

 

For the words that won't be pigeon-holed we face other problems.  Words like "8989" as example.  Many long words are "prefix/prefix/root/suffix" or simply "prefix/prefix/suffix", etc., choose a favorite combination and you'll find it in the VMS.  And for short words, one of my favorites is {am}, the most popular word in the VMS.  Second most popular is {8am}.   {8} by itself is a popular word in its own right, and {am} is a popular word in its own right.  {8am} is a popular word, and all three act as common suffixes.  Very strange behavior for a language.

 

Something else that shows up is that the "alphabet" is not stable.  Different sections introduce new glyphs to the "alphabet", some persist through later sections, and some are limited to that section.  The list of strangeness goes on and on, but one can't really appreciate the strangeness of it all until they've looked at the numbers generated by the Voynich.

 

The average word length of herbal descriptions from this era was about 300 words, and this average matches that of the herbal-a pages.  Herbal-b pages jump to around 600 words on average.  This says that the "words" should indeed be words, but the question is, does each glyph map to a letter in a word?  When glyphs are considered as single letters, the average word length falls roughly in line with known Western languages, so these glyphs should indeed map to a single letter equivalent.  Considering each glyph an actual character in a language opens up a whole 'nother set of problems in character curves and usage however.  Character statistics are pretty much off the chart for language.

 

There's a lot more to this, and several more reasons why I reject the idea that the VMS is natural language, but these few should suffice to provide an idea on why I dissent.

---

GC on the vellum, wax tablets, and more... In response to Barbara Barrett, 12/14/07:

No need to repost, since I've seen by your recent posts you still feel the 
vellum is "uterine vellum" and the script precludes the use of wax tablets 
as an intermediate working medium, so no response is necessary.  I would 
have liked a more elaborate set of arguments to support these conclusions as 
I have tried to put forth on each conclusion I've drawn about the 
manuscript, but you have reasons for your conclusions and I have reasons for 
mine, and we both know that our reasoning, though somewhat different, is 
based on rigorous observation and research.
 
Since our last exchange, I've been doing a bit more research on these two 
topics, partly because I wanted to see how you could be so adamant about 
your conclusions.  Your point about the translucence of the vellum struck 
me, and I wanted to investigate this further.  Part of my need to do this 
was also rooted in the fact that there has been a span passed since I 
engaged in this research, and I wanted to refresh my memory before going 
further.
 
The subject of wax tablets first arose because some of us felt that the 
nature of the cipher required that it first be worked out on another medium 
before being permanently recorded.  Still others remarked at the almost 
flawless execution, which pointed to a copy of something, but no copy, nor 
even mere scrap of this text, exists anywhere, not even in marginalia, 
pointing to an original.  I am of the opinion that the materials are not the 
finest available, and everything from the ink to the vellum has a "handmade" 
quality to it, suggesting a severe lack of funds or meager lifestyle of the 
author.  Some point to the vellum and say it cost more than paper, but did 
it?  A monastic habitat could produce vellum for virtually nothing more than 
labor, but paper had to be purchased.  Home made inks, home made paints, 
etc., suggest something different than a copy made for resale.  Following 
that logic, if cost is a factor, the most likely medium for intermediate 
writing would be the reusable wax tablet.  I've rehearsed your arguments 
against the use of wax tablets, and I remain unconvinced until you shed some 
more light on your reasoning.  My reasoning I think remains sound, and while 
it does not prove the use of wax tablets, it certainly demonstrates that the 
script would be ideal for a wax medium.
 
I'm not overly familiar with the use of wax tablets in modern European 
history, but I am aware that they were used until relatively recently 
(mid-1800's or later) in the United States in classrooms, and everything 
from cursive writing to mathematical calculations were carried out on these 
tablets.  A very good example of complex writing on a wax tablet can be 
found  at the York Archaeological Trust website, which has in its possession 
a set of 14th century wax tablets with various scripts, Latin and English, 
one of the scripts being Cursiva Anglicana, a script which demonstrates that 
anything that could be written on paper or vellum could even then be written 
in wax.
 
The second suggestive clue to this is the Voynich script itself.  I concur 
with D'Imperio that the script has its origins in Latin abbreviations and 
shorthand, since I've done a lot of work in this area researching the 
individual glyphs and tracking their origins and evolution.  Abbreviations 
and shorthand did not have its origins in the scriptorium where books were 
copied and reproduced, it had its origins in secretarial and accounting 
professions, and these professions relied heavily on the use of wax tablets 
to record information.  The characters themselves were originally designed 
by people who routinely used them to record repetitive information on wax 
tablets.  This holds as well for the precursors of modern shorthand.  There 
is one case where two individuals in the last decade of the 16th century 
both recorded a controversial sermon in a new shorthand on wax tablets, and 
then combined their notes to replicate the sermon for print publication. 
Unlike the common Latin abbreviation, this new shorthand was far more 
intricate, involving a set of rotating dots around hundreds of differing 
symbols to stand for various words.  These two gentlemen managed to capture 
this intricate detail on wax tablets, which would be brain surgery compared 
to the very basic stroke nature of the Voynich script.  Not only did they 
have to record in such minute detail, they had to record as fast as the 
spoken word, and on a wax medium.  That in itself says something about the 
state of the art of the wax tablet by the end of the 16th century, and the 
example of Cursiva Anglicana recorded in wax makes it very clear that by the 
14th century wax tablets had become an inexpensive and universal writing 
medium.  I am of course, always open to any new information that would 
preclude the Voynich script from being written in wax as an intermediary, or 
for that matter, any information that would determine conclusively whether 
or not the Voynich is a copy of something else.
 
The other area where you and I are in disagreement is the "uterine vellum" 
attribution.  I had done this research before, but I went through it again 
in case I missed something earlier.  In every example of uterine vellum 
available to me at present (about 230 high resolution recto/verso images), 
no uterine vellum folio demonstrates a visible grain.  Your comment about 
translucence of uterine vellum had me going, and I had thought I'd missed 
something, but I find that I didn't miss that on the first pass through the 
information and relevant examples.  What I did miss is the fact that what 
I've been calling "calf skin" may not be from a cow at all, but from a deer 
or other such readily available animal other than sheep.  I managed to 
answer a couple of my own questions, only to raise a few more questions for 
which I have no current answer.
 
What I did learn is that a lot of what is termed "uterine vellum" in 
scholastic attributions may well not be "vellum" at all, but some other type 
of parchment, the term "vellum" relating specifically to "calf", akin to 
"veal".  For the sake of brevity I won't go into detail on all the varied 
processing techniques that led to different types and grades of parchment, I 
will simply suffice in saying that the imitation of uterine vellum had 
become a valued craft.  One thing I am certain of however, is that the 
Voynich parchment is not one of these attempts to create an imitation 
uterine vellum.  It is a very soft and translucent parchment for the most 
part, but it does not stand up to the quality necessary for real or 
imitation uterine vellum.  It's soft texture and translucence may lie 
entirely in the animal skin from which it was harvested.  Indeed, many of 
the small Franciscan bibles and pocket Psalters that were previously 
considered to be fine uterine vellum are being tested and turning out to be 
rabbit!  The Voynich bifolios are too large for the common rabbit however, 
so that question remains open for the moment.  No true uterine vellum has 
that visible and prominent grain however, so in my mind at least, true 
uterine vellum can be precluded.
 
Previous to your attribution, I was using data gathered from leather 
manufacturers to determine the grain size, and therefore the age, of the 
animals in question, thinking them to be calves, and nothing else.  The 
problem with this is that in order for an ordinary young calf skin to be 
transformed into a translucent fine vellum, part of the process requires a 
treatment that doesn't just stretch the grainy fibers, it obliterates and 
removes the grainy fibers, a procedure not performed on the Voynich 
parchment.  All but a handful of the Voynich parchment bifolios have very 
visible grain, and in some cases the grain is prominent on both sides of the 
bifolio.  If this were calf, this would suggest the use of a part of a skin 
that would normally be discarded in commercial manufacture.  If these are 
vellum, these pages are either not commercially manufactured, or they are 
remnants considered unusable and sold as seconds.  After viewing literally 
thousands of high resolution images of vellum from a wide range of dates, in 
no case have I run across vellum half as grainy as the Voynich parchment.  I 
have a little more research to do in this area, but currently I'm harboring 
the suspicion that these pages aren't calf at all, but something else 
entirely.  I still stand by the few pages I have identified as sheep, as I 
have found supporting images for these pages.  Right now I'm looking heavily 
at deer, and will keep you informed on whether or not the grain matches that 
of deer parchment.
 
Barbara, don't think that I'm finding fault for the sake of argument, I 
truly have better things to do with my time than conduct a Monty Python 
style argument.  These things matter to me, and the truth, however it 
reveals itself, matters a great deal to me.  Everything about this 
manuscript lies hidden in the details, otherwise there would be no logic in 
quibbling about such small details as wax tablets, type of vellum, or even 
wet paint transfers.  Take for instance my "witch's hats" in the Zodiac 
section.  A very small detail, but something I've been interested in for 
years.  It's a hat fashion that became popular in certain areas in the 15th 
century.  Some place this in the 14th century, but long study has 
demonstrated that these 14th century attributions are misprints of earlier 
research, something that comes out when examining the details of the wording 
used in these repeated "histories".  The origin of these hats appears to be 
in the 15th century, and in parts of Europe their use as fashion extended 
into the 16th century.  You're a 13th century girl when it comes to the 
Voynich, so how does this small detail fit into that scenario?  The 
streamlined and lidded alborello jars in the Pharma section, a style not 
usually associated with Italian alborelli.  This fancy style was created by 
Dutch artisans in the latter half of the 15th century, entered Germany circa 
1470 and brought to England circa 1490.  Nothing approaching this design or 
style is found in the 13th century, and European alborelli in general are 
15th century.  The several examples of women holding large rings and wearing 
wedding headdress.  Rings this size (usually wooden) have their origins in 
the north, not in Germany or Italy, as another example.  No dark or black 
hair, how can that be Italian?  etc., a long line of questions (I've 
catalogued about 300, about 80 of which go directly to dating).
 
In a not so recent correspondence I remember saying that after finding 
myself consistently wrong during my first 10 years of Voynich study, I 
finally knuckled down and conducted my research in a scientific manner.  The 
evidence weighs in heavily for the 15th century at the earliest, and even 
that at the higher end of the scale, if not early 16th century.  I must 
allow for the possibility that the Voynich was a work created over several 
decades, since the earliest I can date f57v is the middle of the 16th 
century.  I might yet find something that allows me to date that page 
earlier, but that information has not yet presented itself.  It is not 
unusual however, for a work like this to be ongoing over a lifetime, or even 
two lifetimes if handed off to a successor.  The Voynich could possibly span 
100 years of workmanship if it proves to be constructed by more than one 
person.
 
GC

---