> Does this mean that the encryption by pairs of letters > is what constitutes the nomenclator? If so, then I have > always misunderstood its meaning (thinking that it meant > the use of short code groups for entire words - important > ones at that). Sorry I should have posted on the 'nomenclateur' that Speziali shows in his article. This is a list of trigrams found in the coded message with their meanings. I have scanned it as a jpg and attach it to this message. It appear that this was a list or dictionary necessary for the decipherment of the message. Perhaps codes like these were developed in which special identified words in the text were treated differently. Some words decoded using some sort of substitution common in the period but others needed to be looked up in a dictionary. Here it was trigrams. Perhaps it is some similar kind of mixed-method code that lies behind the Voynich, and that is why it seems impervious to the decoding methods tried so far. Without access to the dictionary it will probably be almost impossible to decode it. However, it may be that codes like the one found by Speziali are quite common and that their dictionary structures had sufficient similarities for someone to try to reconstruct the Voynich look-up table. It would need someone to try and find examples of such dimplomatic codes of the early 16th century. Surely someone, somewhere has done a Ph.D. on this. Adam McLean
Attachment:
speziali2.jpg
Description: JPEG image
---------------------- alchemy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web site: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/home.html Alchemy Web bookstore: http://www.alchemy.dial.pipex.com Paintings: http://www.alchemy.dial.pipex.com/paintings
