Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Not really, at least, not this time and not by this person. If it was a set of anagrams, frequency analysis would have matched medieval Italian. See:


It's an interesting approach, and the 'plaintext'/plant matching looks convincing. Many of the words she derives require omitting letters or adding letters to the anagram text. There go standard frequencies. In some cases one letter stands for several (x=>ver). Add to that the likelihood that the author was poor & uneducated, throw in bad spelling but great knowledge of flora.

It'd be awesome if the solution was going under so many heads for so long.

Not if the text has an unusual character distribution.

Which is another way of saying, maybe the book is not in Medieval Italian. You can't write 35k words in a language, jumble the letters, and have it come out with such aberrant statistical properties.

Citing Wikipedia:

"the Voynich manuscript's "language" is quite unlike European languages in several aspects. Firstly, there are practically no words comprising more than ten glyphs, yet there are also few one- or two-letter words. The distribution of letters within words is also rather peculiar: some characters only occur at the beginning of a word, some only at the end, and some always in the middle section."

The link pvg pasted mentions other difficulties.

One wonders if the then-common use of ligatures, abbreviation and short form substitution could account for the apparent discrepancy with the character counts?


If you're intending to be obfuscatory, you might come up with "aberrant statistical properties".

Not over any significant length of text and it's not going to be tremendously aberrant. The text of Gadsby is easy to google, try tossing a chapter or two into a letter frequency counter. The resulting histogram still looks a great deal like what you'd get for plain English.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact