Voynich manuscript is-

I think it’s a 600 yr old, Darwin type work.

You’ll need to be clearer about what you’re asking or asserting if you want a useful response.

I am bowled over reading how you came to that conclusion.

The OP is talking about this.

Sorry, but XKCDhas already nailed this one. I will need some absolutely incontrovertible evidence before I’ll believe anything else.

600 years is too short for the manuscript to have evolved from a simpler manuscript.

Do you mean that it was influenced by the Galapagos Islands? Perhaps written by much older tortoises? Finches maybe?

Maybe Charles “Chuck” Darwin wrote it on the Beagle under the influence of rum and scurvy?

Ja, I know what the OP is referring to. I just don’t know what the OP is trying to ask or say about it.

This shows the value of mixers. A little lime juice with that rum and he wouldn’t have had that problems.

Heh, and here I thought it was totally fictional; I’ve only run across it in fiction where it’s included as part of a list of eldritch lore, like the Necronomicon.

Prior Voynich threads:

The Voynich Manuscript 08-26-2002

What’s the deal with the Voynich Manuscript? 06/05/2003

New research strengthens hoax hypothesis for Voynich manuscript 12-22-2003

Anything New on the “Voynich” Manuscript? 12-26-2010.

A breakthrough on the Voynich Manuscript? 01-22-2014.

(Plus various other threads where it’s mentioned tangentially.)

Voynich fan site, including whole bunches of other related links: http://www.voynich.net/

Maybe he’s communicating in the language found in the book?


Let’s see …

  1. Join date in current month
  2. Single post
  3. Somewhat incomprehensible post
  4. Hi, Opal!

On the other hand, the OP gets props for brevity.

And grammatical correctness.

Shame about the, you know, actual *meaning *of his sentence. “Darwin type?” indeed.

I must be dense: I never get those cartoons.

Dungeons and Dragons/similar RPGs.

The OP has obviously OD’d on Sizzler all-you-can-eat shrimp. It’s the only explanation.

I’ve never played RPGs, so that would explain it. Thanks.

A typical RPG book (or collection of separate books) looks like this:

  1. Player characters and their classes/races. Lots of pictures of elves, dwarves, archers, mages, etc. with all their various stats listed and descriptions of what they do. Even when it’s obvious from the picture that the guy with the big club is in charge of clubbing people, we still need a couple paragraphs highlighting that.
  2. Details on all those skills referenced in the first chapter, with some pictures of how they work.
  3. Basic game mechanics - lots of rules, math and tables to figure out who killed who and how drunk you got at the tavern. Usually this is divided into a player section and a game master/dungeon master section.
  4. Equipment, with everything from herbs and potions to swords and armor. You must provide forty-seven variants of sword so that geeks can debate over what really distinguishes a “broad sword” from a “long sword” when the history books seem to show that the terms were actually interchangeable back in the day. Bonus points if half the weapons are things like double-bladed swords that are too large, impractical or just plain silly to work anywhere but the cover of a book in which a naked princess is rescued from a giant snake. (Also, when you create stupid rules about dropping your sword in combat, create a sword welded to a gauntlet so that it can’t be dropped.)
  5. The setting, with lots of maps, kingdoms, etc described and illustrated. This is necessary so that players can ignore them and create their own kingdom to play in.
  6. The bestiary, with all the goblins, giant spiders, demons, dragons, floating eyeballs, etc. with pictures, descriptions, stats and random encounter tables.
  7. Pre-made adventures with all the plot description, new equipment, maps, non-player characters, etc. that will be needed.

So… yeah, you wind up with something like the Voynich manuscript.