(09-07-2025, 11:16 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I know, Newbold only translated a few pages, or perhaps even just parts of a few pages.
More 'promising' (in a way) are the E-mails I am now receiving each week.
These are about complete translations. Not just 75%.
On a more philosphical note, I wonder if 75% of invalid translation is better than 45% of invalid translation, or, indeed, worse....
Can you tell us more about the letters with statements of translation of 100% of the Voynich manuscript?
(09-07-2025, 11:16 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I know, Newbold only translated a few pages, or perhaps even just parts of a few pages.
More 'promising' (in a way) are the E-mails I am now receiving each week.
These are about complete translations. Not just 75%.
On a more philosphical note, I wonder if 75% of invalid translation is better than 45% of invalid translation, or, indeed, worse....
Prove the incorrectness of my translation, where 75% of words are recognized.
(09-07-2025, 01:11 PM)cvetkakocj@rogers.com Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (08-07-2025, 07:48 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many of your rival Solvers have found hundreds or thousands of words in their chosen language" - here is an important question: have they translated hundreds and thousands of words, translating many sentences in a row, translating from random samples, or limiting themselves to convenient words and phrases in different places of the text? And also, what percentage of such words completely match words from dictionaries, and what percentage only partially, with the root and the like?
2. Is there a record on the website of how many words of the Voynich manuscript were recognized by the program based on the alphabet proposed by one person or another? If it is not being conducted, then why? That's a big omission.
3. Suppose my interpretation is trivial, and with three languages, 75% of the recognized text can be obtained with many alphabet variants. But has there been any research on this topic? Would you recommend someone who knows how to use special programs well, who would use such programs to calculate the number of recognizable words of the Voynich manuscript based on my alphabet? I would also like to learn from such people about experiments with more than one language and the percentage of recognized words for each case. Are there such people here and the practice of calculating the percentage of recognized words using programs?
Neither of you mentions inflection. With highly inflected language, one root can generate ten, twenty words that differ for one or two letters and are considered by the Voynich researchers as unique words, while they all belong to the same word family. Therefore, in a languagege where different suffixes are used for six cases, three numbers and three genders, just a declination of a masculine noun can generate 18 different suffixes. Add to this a verb from that same word family and conjugate it for 3 numbers, three genders, 3 persons, and you get another nine similar words. Different one or two-letter prefixes would further increase the number of similar words. This is how 1000 different words could be recognized from just 50 or hundred recognizable words.
I take all this into account, but usually, the vast majority of declensions, conjugations and the like do not disappear, and they can be found in modern dictionaries. At least, information about extinct languages that had written language is usually preserved. If nothing like this is found, it suggests that most likely such declensions have never existed.
(09-07-2025, 01:19 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello Michael!
I just visited the Telegram chat for Chinese language enthusiasts you mentioned; it was very informative.
I now better understand the reasons for the vindictive tone of your messages here: you brought it from Telegram.
I also understand that whatever advice we could give you here would be wasted, because the same advice has already been given to you by members of the chat, and it was of no use.
I ask you, if you criticize me, to refer to specific facts, and provide objective comprehensive evidence, or at least justification.
(09-07-2025, 03:10 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (09-07-2025, 01:36 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there any connection between Chinese language enthusiasts and the Voynich Manuscript?
Chat members asked this question several times before advising him to post on voynich.ninja.
What is it about here in principle?
(09-07-2025, 07:07 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If it's trivial - prove it's trivial.
I think I showed this in my very first post in this thread.
(09-07-2025, 07:07 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for my "unwillingness to make more efforts," what makes you think that I am not ready to make these efforts? I wrote not about this, but about recognizing what I had already achieved: recognizing the maximum percentage of words based on my alphabet.
I see no achievement on your part so far. I don't consider your results valid.
We don't have to prove anything. You're the one claiming to have solved it. As hundreds before you have claimed.
(09-07-2025, 08:13 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (09-07-2025, 07:07 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If it's trivial - prove it's trivial.
I think I showed this in my very first post in this thread.
(09-07-2025, 07:07 PM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for my "unwillingness to make more efforts," what makes you think that I am not ready to make these efforts? I wrote not about this, but about recognizing what I had already achieved: recognizing the maximum percentage of words based on my alphabet.
I see no achievement on your part so far. I don't consider your results valid.
I write for everyone and not for you, even when I answer you. That you don't notice much in principle raises very little doubt.
(09-07-2025, 08:19 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We don't have to prove anything. You're the one claiming to have solved it. As hundreds before you have claimed.
I think so. But if my opinion is not enough for you, there is something that cannot be refuted: a record percentage of recognized words. Such records are very important as a beacon for further research, even if it were not for me to take up them.
I prove not only to you, but to everyone.
(10-07-2025, 11:18 AM)Michael Obraztsov Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I prove not only to you, but to everyone.
Ok, if you want to prove something, let's make one last attempt to see how good your method is. How many words can you recognize in this snippet?
[
attachment=10978]
Michael, what you're percieving as hostility is just caution and a little weariness. This is new and exciting to you but for us, it's the 1000th time we've seen someone claim they have deciphered the manuscript, and each one of them was equally as convinced as you are. Despite that, each one was quickly shown to be wrong. Many of them have a very similar "solution" as you. Nearly all of them in the last year or so have used AI and been misled by its false positives.
I don't think any of us are part of your Chinese language Telegram so please don't think there is some concerted campaign against you. None of it is personal.
(10-07-2025, 03:48 PM)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Michael, what you're percieving as hostility is just caution and a little weariness. This is new and exciting to you but for us, it's the 1000th time we've seen someone claim they have deciphered the manuscript, and each one of them was equally as convinced as you are. Despite that, each one was quickly shown to be wrong. Many of them have a very similar "solution" as you. Nearly all of them in the last year or so have used AI and been misled by its false positives.
I don't think any of us are part of your Chinese language Telegram so please don't think there is some concerted campaign against you. None of it is personal.
Thank you for humanly explaining.
But to be honest, I would rather believe that I would be right to translate the whole book by coincidence (although I consider such a coincidence extremely unlikely) than that I would not be able to meaningfully translate the entire Voynich manuscript based on my alphabet.
Could you talk about those very solutions similar to mine?