Yesterday, 01:14 PM
After reading many so-called “translations” and discussions about the Voynich, I can say with certainty that with that approach they will never be able to translate it.
From the start, they are not even trying to translate — they are trying to interpret.
Interpreting isolated pages, words, or images will never lead to the creation of a Rosetta table, and without such a table, translation is impossible.
Translate from what? Into what? From which language?
Almost every discussion begins with alphabetic assumptions, but the truth is that the Voynich is not an alphabetic text.
These are western perspectives — all of them using hammers when what was needed was a precision instrument.
Because that instrument, that “Rosetta table,” doesn’t exist, the first task was to reconstruct it.
Another major problem I’ve noticed is that people are trying to translate the manuscript using modern patterns of thought and expression, which is absurd.
The key is not to think like a modern person, but to think as the authors themselves thought — to understand how they spoke and how they wrote.
Trying to decode it while thinking in English, using English words and modern alphabetic grammar, was never going to work.
That’s why, even after 10, 20, or 30 years, there has been no real progress — because all those approaches are fundamentally wrong.
From the start, they are not even trying to translate — they are trying to interpret.
Interpreting isolated pages, words, or images will never lead to the creation of a Rosetta table, and without such a table, translation is impossible.
Translate from what? Into what? From which language?
Almost every discussion begins with alphabetic assumptions, but the truth is that the Voynich is not an alphabetic text.
These are western perspectives — all of them using hammers when what was needed was a precision instrument.
Because that instrument, that “Rosetta table,” doesn’t exist, the first task was to reconstruct it.
Another major problem I’ve noticed is that people are trying to translate the manuscript using modern patterns of thought and expression, which is absurd.
The key is not to think like a modern person, but to think as the authors themselves thought — to understand how they spoke and how they wrote.
Trying to decode it while thinking in English, using English words and modern alphabetic grammar, was never going to work.
That’s why, even after 10, 20, or 30 years, there has been no real progress — because all those approaches are fundamentally wrong.