The article of Lisa Davis is based on the idea that the language hypotheses is state of the art. The article didn't provide sufficient evidence for this hypotheses and didn't refer to any known counter argument (some of the counter arguments can be found in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).
These are my main findings so far:
1) There are "linguistically identifiable roots, prefixes, and suffixes" (p. 73).
This way the article presents the hypotheses that the Voynich manuscript represents natural language as a fact. There are no examples of roots, prefixes or suffixes given and beside "(see Figure 1)" as reference to folio 84r no further external reference is given. Since an explanation is missing it is already unclear what Lisa Davis means.
2) There are "repeating orthographic and grammatical patterns" (p. 73).
Again no example of such a pattern is given. Also in this case it is unclear to what type of patterns Lisa Davis is referring to.
3) "until the text is rendered legible" (p. 75).
Unfortunately the article didn't present any evidence supporting the idea that it must be possible to read the text.
4) "Enormous computing power has been devoted to linguistic analysis of the text, in efforts to discern patterns that might point towards a particular source language" (p. 75).
Again a reference to such a study is missing. Moreover it is unclear why a computer should be helpful in detecting unidentified patterns in a script nobody can read.
5) "Recent linguistic analyses suggest that Voynichese may represent a natural - and as yet unidentified - human language" (p. 75).
In this case Lisa Davis gives a reference to the paper of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. But Amancio et al. are only arguing: "We show that it is mostly compatible with natural languages and incompatible with random texts." (Amancio et al. 2012). That the text is compatible in some aspects with natural languages doesn't imply that the text represents natural language (see also You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).
6) "it isn’t nonsense, and it isn’t an invented language like Elvish or Klingon." (p. 75).
Again an opinion is stated as a fact.
7) "Even so, the lack of decryption success has led some to believe it to be gibberish, an elaborate hoax." (p. 75).
In this case a reference to an article in Scientific America by Rugg from 2004 and to a paper in Cryptologia by Timm and Schinner from 2020 is given (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.). I must say that I feel our paper is misrepresented with such a statement.
8) "To solve it convincingly will require a combination of skills that are unlikely to have been mastered by a single person. It will need to be a team effort." (p. 77).
The results of most researchers are available in print and most time even online. The idea that today someone is studying the Voynich manuscript without knowing of past efforts is therefore unreasonable.
9) "But for everyone working on the manuscript today, there is no excuse for not reading the vetted, published work, reviewing the chatrooms and blogs, and sifting through social media." (p. 82).
I doubt that it would be helpful to read all chats, blogs, and tweets about the Voynich manuscript. Instead I would recommend the work of Currier, D'Imperio, Bennett, Landini, Stolfi, Reddy & Knight, Kennedy & Churchill, Montemurro & Zanette, Zandbergen, Schinner, Vogt, Hermes and Timm & Schinner.