Take the 2-minute tour ×
Cryptography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for software developers, mathematicians and others interested in cryptography. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I understand the the texts within the Voynich Manuscript are of an unknown language, and yet cryptographers are still working on it and still trying to decipher it. Does that mean that it is possible to crack any piece of writing even if it's in a language you don't know, and assuming you have no access to any tools that can translate the language? For example, let's say I see a piece of writing in Arabic, which obviously has no cohesion to English. Is it possible to translate it just by working on that piece of writing alone without nothing else? If so how would I go about this?

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Ilmari Karonen, Maeher, hunter, D.W., orlp Sep 3 '13 at 11:32

  • This question does not appear to be about cryptography within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Although it's kind of close, I don't think this question is really on topic for Cryptography Stack Exchange. You might have better luck with it on the History or Linguistics Stack Exchange sites. (That said, if someone else thinks it's on topic here and wants to answer it, I could change my mind.) –  Ilmari Karonen Sep 2 '13 at 20:48
Ps. Obligatory Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decipherment –  Ilmari Karonen Sep 2 '13 at 20:52

2 Answers 2

A core assumption of natural languages is that conceptual frequency and the grammar to construct and articulate concepts is not evenly and randomly distributed; so pattern discovery can occur.

However, two problems can quickly arise:

  1. If the language sample (or collection of samples) is too small, the patterns may not be distinct and consistent. Cretan Linear A for example lacks a large enough corpus for robust patterns.
  2. If you have a decent corpus with lots of patterns, say a 1GB block of natural language text, the language could still be hermetic. You may know how symbols relate and which should occur when but you would still need intense in-depth knowledge of the human brain to map each pattern to the most probable human motivation or abstraction. So the language would have be of human origin with no explicit intent to befuddle the uninitiated reader.

If I chose a novel in a language I don't know (say Russian) and converted it into Wingdings; my brain would still feel that the text "fits" my innate idea of written language without knowing why. Ilmari Karonen is correct that this problem is inherently cross-disciplinary.

The cryptanalytic curio is that a natural language isn't secure according to mathematical models but can still be completely unintelligible, thus serving the same outcome. This is a security-through-obscurity irritant that some cryptanalysts love to scratch. :-)

So yes, it is possible with the right provisos. If you can decipher a previously unknown natural language with a large corpus, yet disassociated from all other languages - you will probably win a Nobel prize in something.

share|improve this answer

The answer is yes, primarily because it has been done. Linear B, Akkadian, Sumerian, and hieroglyphics all had no persons with knowledge of them for centuries, and yet we can translate them today.

share|improve this answer
I think it's the wrong answer, and the examples are definitely wrong. the answer could be "no" or "yes but it's very very hard". Egyption hieroglyphics were cracked only because a translation was found (Rosetta stone), Sumerian was cracked in a similar fashion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language#Historiography –  Hello World Apr 30 at 7:22
Akkadian was also cracked that way. –  Hello World Apr 30 at 7:31
Linear B was greek-related, and this might have been the key to deciphering it, but I am not entirely sure. –  Hello World Apr 30 at 7:49

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.