(08-12-2021, 04:11 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you mean something like this?
[al] = all, ale, ail, awl, al[cohol], Al[exander]; (read backwards) law, lay
[am] = am, aim, ham; (read backwards) may, ma [i.e., mother]
[alam] = a lamb, a lame, a lam[p]; (read backwards) mala [Latin, "cheekbone"]
[ok] = oak, o'c[lock]
[ot] = oat, ought, aught, out, hoot; (read backwards) toe, tow, too, two
[ar] = are, ar[tichoke], our, hour; (read backwards) raw
[otar] = otter, other, author; (read partly backwards as [to-ar]) tower
[air] = air, ear, er[ror], Ire[land]; (read backwards) ray, wrai[th]
[or] = or, ore, oar, whore, Or[pheus]; (read backwards) row
[oror] = horror; (read backwards) "row, row" (as in "row, row, row your boat")
[chor] = chore, core, chor[us]; (read backwards) roach
[chol] = coal, cool; (read backwards) loch
[shor] = shore, sure, sore, soar, shower; (read backwards) rush
[shol] = shoal, school, shoul[d], sol[d], sho[ve]l; (read backwards) lush
[fachys.ykal.ar.ataiin.shol] = Fact is, I color it in school
[dam] = dam, damn, dam[p]; (read backwards) mad, made, maid, Mad[eleine]
[dar] = dare, there, dar[k], dar[t]; (read backwards) raid, read
[dal] = dale, they'll, dal[ly]; (read backwards) lad, lad[y], lad[der]
[ches], [chees] = cheese, chess; (read backwards) such
[chesy] = cheesy
[chedar] = cheddar; (read backwards) radish
[alchedar] = all cheddar
[cheky], [cheeky] = cheeky
[chedy], [shedy] = shady
[ol] = ol[d], hole, whole, owl; (read backwards) low
[olkedy] = old kitty, whole kiddie
[sain] = sane, sayin[g], seen
[ain] = one, haying, eyeing
[dain] = done, down, town
[aiin] = one! (emphatic)
[daiin] = done! down! (emphatic)
[daiin.daiin.daiin] = done downtown! (emphatic)
[aiiin] = one!! (very emphatic)
[daiiin] = done!! (very emphatic)
You haven't included multiple languages/dialects. (And what about anagrams.) This seems in fact to be a rather conservative list of words, I think you could include many more.
(08-12-2021, 04:59 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You haven't included multiple languages/dialects. (And what about anagrams.) This seems in fact to be a rather conservative list of words, I think you could include many more.
I think I've updated the original post slightly since you quoted it, but since I still can't come up with solid translations for a handful of passages in the VM, I admit that the scheme must not feature enough free anagramming and languages yet. Hopefully others can fill in the gaps where I've fallen short.
Well, there you have it! A phonetic interpretation of the EVA transcription, into plain English, none the less. Or some other language, if you like. Easier than falling off a log. Surely that represents an example of something.
I think we can agree that the proposed choice of language is going to be in the investigator's area of familiarity: Armenian, Aramaic, Aleut, etc. Attacking from the side of language choice at least appears to be a problematic approach.
An alternative approach would be the glyph to phoneme conversion. Perhaps it should be noted, first of all, that anyone who has accepted the phonetic interpretations implied by the EVA transcription, has immersed themselves in quicksand. This is a flawed analogy, as I understand the origins of EVA. There is *no implied* phonetic component in the EVA symbols.
Other than the vague suggestion that a determination of phonetic values might be tied in with the so-called '4 x 17' symbol sequence of f57v, there hasn't been much discussion of finding a method to attach phonetic values to VMs glyphs. Establishment of a correct conversion would surely be significant.
Perhaps all 'language first' solutions can be characterized and classified as false. It seems to hold up so far. If someone has a proposed solution, pick a random page from the VMs botany section and see how that goes. There is little reason to argue the methodology. Have the investigator demonstrate the methodology within the VMs.
Voynich "solutions" can be subdivided into two distinct groups:
1) Those that propose a deciphering of all or part of the text (usually only a small part)
2) Those that try to explain in what context it was created and possibly by whom, without any text solution
While the discussion here seems to focus more on the first group, the second group of proposed solutions is very significant, and includes anything from the stark raving to the mildly incredible (and everything in between).
The two independent Meso-American theories fall into this category, with major publications from respected academics.
Criticizing such "solutions" - from either category - should not be done by people who are actually involved themselves in developing such "solutions". We can see how Cheshire criticizes everyone else, just because he "knows" that he is right.
This can only be done by people (mostly, but not exclusively, academics) who are fully aware that we are, after all this time, still in the "data gathering" stage. The recent interview of Ray Clemens is an excellent example. Lisa is another example and I know quite a few more people who are at this stage.
(14-12-2021, 04:32 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Voynich "solutions" can be subdivided into two distinct groups:
2) Those that try to explain in what context it was created and possibly by whom, without any text solution
While the discussion here seems to focus more on the first group, the second group of proposed solutions is very significant, and includes anything from the stark raving to the mildly incredible (and everything in between).
Criticizing such "solutions" - from either category - should not be done by people who are actually involved themselves in developing such "solutions". We can see how Cheshire criticizes everyone else, just because he "knows" that he is right.
This can only be done by people (mostly, but not exclusively, academics) who are fully aware that we are, after all this time, still in the "data gathering" stage.
The second class of so called "solutions" are not complete, so I question whether the term "solution" is necessarily appropriate with these. In the case of this second class it is much harder to say who is right and who is not. Someone can propose that the Voynich is European in origin, but proving that or disproving that is hard. I focused this thread on the first kind as they seem to be much more easily addressed and more in need of addressing.
I think people can be capable of wearing two hats one where an individual develops their own theories and hypotheses and another where they try to objectively assess the theories of others. Just, because Gerard Cheshire may not be inclined to wear more than one hat it doesn't mean that others can't.
The "data gathering" process is a continuing phase which doesn't have an end and it is possible for Voynich researchers to form and develop perfectly valid ideas whilst this continues, as many have. In fact it seems vital for the data gathering process as it directs individuals as to which data is likely to be most important to gather. I don't think we can say at some arbitrary moment that the "data gathering" phase has now finished and now is time for the theorising phase. I think there is definitely scope for saying that judgements about Voynich theories should be made by academics in relevant fields, however determining who should fall into the "but not exclusively" category is something else.
That may all be true. Personally, I don't think much of him for 10 years.
For me, he belongs to the third group. He is on the breakdown lane and pushes the car, but as long as the wheels are rolling, you don't have a breakdown. Only the speed changes.
For me, he has long ceased to be a reference, and certainly not where he could help me. I can not rely on his statements and have to explore everything again.
Translated with You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (free version)
(14-12-2021, 04:32 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Criticizing such "solutions" - from either category - should not be done by people who are actually involved themselves in developing such "solutions". We can see how Cheshire criticizes everyone else, just because he "knows" that he is right.
This can only be done by people (mostly, but not exclusively, academics) who are fully aware that we are, after all this time, still in the "data gathering" stage. The recent interview of Ray Clemens is an excellent example. Lisa is another example and I know quite a few more people who are at this stage.
The problem with Cheshire is not that he is involved. The problem with him is that he doesn't know enough to say anything insightful about the Voynich manuscript.
I would even argue that to be able to criticize others it is necessary to research a subject and to get involved this way in the first place. For instance Lisa Davis has published her five scribes hypothesis. But this doesn't mean that Lisa is "too involved" to criticize other hypotheses about the same subject. On the contrary since Lisa has researched the subject I would be eager to hear what she has to say about another hypothesis.
I think René means that one theorist is not able to asses another theorist's work, because they are similarly misled. For example, if I convince myself that the VM is the work of pope Innocent VII, and I see confirmation after confirmation that I am on the right track, I will have lost my ability to assess competing theories objectively.
(14-12-2021, 11:29 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think René means that one theorist is not able to asses another theorist's work, because they are similarly misled. For example, if I convince myself that the VM is the work of pope Innocent VII, and I see confirmation after confirmation that I am on the right track, I will have lost my ability to assess competing theories objectively.
The problem when it comes to this second class is that determining that such assertions are false is much harder to do, if they are indeed false.
Someone might argue that the author of the Voynich is Jewish. One could think that the arguments made for the author being Jewish are weak or flawed, however saying with complete confidence that the author was not Jewish is very hard. In fact I think if someone thinks that the author is Jewish it does not necessarily preclude them from analysing a theory that the author is of a different ethnicity, objectively.
By contract determining the falsity of Gerard Cheshire's theory is much more manageable.and reasonable a goal.
Pope Innocent VII was born in 1432, so on the basis of the carbon dating he would easily be excluded. However if someone were to say that the Voynich manuscript was a product of the Papacy of Martin V then that is hard to disprove even if we think it is not the case.
This is why I deliberately didn't want to include this so called second category in this thread.
I see two similar categories, with the first being mainly linguistic and the second much more involved with the illustrations. And while the first still hovers in limbo; the second has made some progress in recent years on a modest number of VMs image interpretations. The cosmos, the merlons, the mermaid, the usual list. The images even hint of a time that corresponds within the VMs parchment C-14 dates. The Golden Fleece (1430); La Sainte Hostie de Dijon (1435). Events that are obscure or unknown today were *BIG NEWS* at the time. And as such they are elements that the VMs artist 'plays off of' and manipulates in the relevant representations.
As the history of investigation repeatedly proves, if the connection to history is lost, the image becomes inscrutable. The reason that this picture of VMs history might be relevant is because it is based on the works of multiple investigators, each of whom had discovered a part of the puzzle that seems to fit together with certain others, based on the current events of European history up to the date of c. 1435 or a bit later.
The fact that the specific events focus on the state of Burgundy, indicates that the artist was familiar with the famous, current events of the time, in the same way as the artist was familiar with the use of the nebuly line in the VMs cosmos and with an unusual type of cosmic structure, and with heraldry as well. However, it may not provide any valid indications as to whether the artist was male or female, originated from Poland or from Portugal, was functionally illiterate or a master of encryption.
Linguistic investigations are different. None are yet built up on the contributions of various other investigations. Instead, they are like 'ivory tower' investigations. Each is built in idiosyncratic isolation to try to conform to the "data". And that is 'data' in quotes, because many investigations make severe and fatal errors before they even get to the real data. Like phoneticizing EVA.
My question is whether the information discovered by these investigations will move things forward, or will the dust stirred up by these errors hold progress back?