Voynich Woolvin Translation Project Recipe-Style Shorthand Hypothesis with Evidence
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2025 7:57 am
Hello all,
My name is Thomas and I am an independent researcher. I’ve been developing what I call the Voynich Woolvin Translation Project, where I treat the manuscript as a functional shorthand system instead of a lost language and have MUCH more than what I am posting here but anyway to get things stated, the evidence strongly suggests it works like recipe cards:
Prefixes = actions (boil, crush, measure, strain)
Roots = ingredients (plants, liquids, parts)
Suffixes = processes / applications (apply, repeat, prepare)
This explains why the manuscript has repeated clusters instead of fluent sentences, such as i, ii, iii, for example— it was never prose, but simply shorthand instructions.
1. Examples by Folio
F1r (opening herbal page no plant):
qokedy qokeedy shedy qotedy
→ boil, measure, strain, apply
F2r (possible Knapweed/Thistle):
kydainy ypchol daiin otchal ypchaiin ckholsy
→ Measure the dose, boil in water, apply.
F7r (top lines):
qokedy vs qokeedy → identical except one extra “e” → shorthand for time/length variation in boiling.
shedy appears again, consistent with straining liquid.
2. Dictionary-in-Progress
Segment Hypothesized Meaning Example(s) Context
qo- boil / heat qokedy, qokeedy Prep steps
shed- strain / filter shedy Liquids
dai- measure / dose daiin, daiiny Quantity
-edy apply / use qokedy, shedy End step
-ain combine / mix daiin, otain Mixtures
-al repeat / continue cholal, otal Sequential instr.
This segmentation accounts for why “words” look nearly identical — they’re functional shorthand variants.
3. Structural Evidence
Suffix clustering: -edy dominates herbal + zodiac folios → points to ritual/action shorthand.
Near-duplicates: qokedy / qokeedy differ only in suffix → exactly how shorthand variation should behave.
Cross-folio consistency: Same clusters recur across different plant pages → universal prep steps, while unique roots tie to specific herbs.
4. Why This Matters
Explains lack of fluent sentences: shorthand, not language.
Explains “misspellings”: functional suffix modifiers, not errors.
Provides a testable model. Even in other section of the the short hand still follows though section dependent some prefix and suffix meaning can change but stays consistent through its section.
5. Invitation
Has anyone else tested a recipe/shorthand framework?
Which folios should we stress-test this against?
Would the community be interested in building a shared prefix-root-suffix dictionary?
I’m committed to refining this into a reproducible framework that can explain the manuscript’s structure, page by page.
Thanks for your time,
—Thomas
Copyright & Use Notice
This post and its contents are part of the ongoing Voynich Woolvin Translation Project by Thomas Woolvin. © 2025 Thomas Woolvin.
Permission is granted to quote or discuss portions of this work for academic, research, or non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution is given.
Commercial use, reproduction, or redistribution of this content without written consent is strictly prohibited.
My name is Thomas and I am an independent researcher. I’ve been developing what I call the Voynich Woolvin Translation Project, where I treat the manuscript as a functional shorthand system instead of a lost language and have MUCH more than what I am posting here but anyway to get things stated, the evidence strongly suggests it works like recipe cards:
Prefixes = actions (boil, crush, measure, strain)
Roots = ingredients (plants, liquids, parts)
Suffixes = processes / applications (apply, repeat, prepare)
This explains why the manuscript has repeated clusters instead of fluent sentences, such as i, ii, iii, for example— it was never prose, but simply shorthand instructions.
1. Examples by Folio
F1r (opening herbal page no plant):
qokedy qokeedy shedy qotedy
→ boil, measure, strain, apply
F2r (possible Knapweed/Thistle):
kydainy ypchol daiin otchal ypchaiin ckholsy
→ Measure the dose, boil in water, apply.
F7r (top lines):
qokedy vs qokeedy → identical except one extra “e” → shorthand for time/length variation in boiling.
shedy appears again, consistent with straining liquid.
2. Dictionary-in-Progress
Segment Hypothesized Meaning Example(s) Context
qo- boil / heat qokedy, qokeedy Prep steps
shed- strain / filter shedy Liquids
dai- measure / dose daiin, daiiny Quantity
-edy apply / use qokedy, shedy End step
-ain combine / mix daiin, otain Mixtures
-al repeat / continue cholal, otal Sequential instr.
This segmentation accounts for why “words” look nearly identical — they’re functional shorthand variants.
3. Structural Evidence
Suffix clustering: -edy dominates herbal + zodiac folios → points to ritual/action shorthand.
Near-duplicates: qokedy / qokeedy differ only in suffix → exactly how shorthand variation should behave.
Cross-folio consistency: Same clusters recur across different plant pages → universal prep steps, while unique roots tie to specific herbs.
4. Why This Matters
Explains lack of fluent sentences: shorthand, not language.
Explains “misspellings”: functional suffix modifiers, not errors.
Provides a testable model. Even in other section of the the short hand still follows though section dependent some prefix and suffix meaning can change but stays consistent through its section.
5. Invitation
Has anyone else tested a recipe/shorthand framework?
Which folios should we stress-test this against?
Would the community be interested in building a shared prefix-root-suffix dictionary?
I’m committed to refining this into a reproducible framework that can explain the manuscript’s structure, page by page.
Thanks for your time,
—Thomas
Copyright & Use Notice
This post and its contents are part of the ongoing Voynich Woolvin Translation Project by Thomas Woolvin. © 2025 Thomas Woolvin.
Permission is granted to quote or discuss portions of this work for academic, research, or non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution is given.
Commercial use, reproduction, or redistribution of this content without written consent is strictly prohibited.