Celtic Linguistics is not totally settled so this is all going to be a little approximate, but what we do know renders that speculation...extraordinary, to say the least. Those languages were extinct by 800 years before the VMS, and some of them by many centuries more than that. This would be like sounding out a text from Roman-era Germany using a modern English dictionary. Even if you're right about the language, they are so different that approach could only fail. Gaulish, the closest one, looks like this. "MARTIALIS DANNOTALI IEVRV VCVETE SOSIN CELICNONETIC GOBEDBI DVGIIONTIIO VCVETIN IN ALISIIA". It gets less and less like modern Insular Celtic languages from there.
I will admit to being a little jealous; I quite frankly wish I had the audacity to tell people they were not listening hard enough to Irish sound clips to understand Roman-era Celtic
To me this is reading like it's giving both large and small instructions.
regulating form frieze/cloth/canvas from two torn strips of cloth closed seives(or from reed) drink not sucking little thing
regulating form frieze/cloth/canvas from two stretches of ground (with) loy seives (or from reed) drink/nourish sucking little thing(worm connotation)
(16-11-2025, 07:15 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Celtic Linguistics is not totally settled so this is all going to be a little approximate, but what we do know renders that speculation...extraordinary, to say the least. Those languages were extinct by 800 years before the VMS, and some of them by many centuries more than that. This would be like sounding out a text from Roman-era Germany using a modern English dictionary. Even if you're right about the language, they are so different that approach could only fail. Gaulish, the closest one, looks like this. "MARTIALIS DANNOTALI IEVRV VCVETE SOSIN CELICNONETIC GOBEDBI DVGIIONTIIO VCVETIN IN ALISIIA". It gets less and less like modern Insular Celtic languages from there.
I will admit to being a little jealous; I quite frankly wish I had the audacity to tell people they were not listening hard enough to Irish sound clips to understand Roman-era Celtic
tehe
To me this is reading like it's giving both large and small instructions.
regulating form frieze/cloth/canvas from two torn strips of cloth closed seives(or from reed) drink not sucking little thing
regulating form frieze/cloth/canvas from two stretches of ground (with) loy seives (or from reed) drink/nourish sucking little thing(worm connotation)
One of my variations of the paragraph below.
Small hand/scoop of untilled lea, standing stone, it sucking its element(water) tip, *remnant not, (sharply)flooding cord-line
Small hand/scoop of untilled lea standing stone it sucking its element(water) tip, *remnant not, (dart)flooding trough
remnant-free
I genuinely thought this would be helpful. Lisa Fagin Davis told me to come on here twice after having a thread made of me on this site without my knowledge last year that belittled my work. I had no idea there was a voynich font built into this website until more than 10 pages into this conversation..
I have touched every page of this work, This is not cherry-picking or coincidence. I mean come on, what the heck is a cochog? How would I have known that? I'm asking for those willing to actually demonstrate repeatability, join for a full lesson (since audio is involved). I don't know why it feels like I'm not allowed to sit at the table. It's unsettling to me.
Take your time, step away if you need to and take time to do the background reading at your own pace, then think about - in an intellectually honest way - how what you've learned impacts your ideas, and then either change your ideas if necessary or be prepared to explain how they allign with what we already know.
This was said by Lisa and it reads a bit like scientology? I don't know. I'm fine with doing more background research, of course. I just, I came here to request repeatability.
(16-11-2025, 07:15 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Celtic Linguistics is not totally settled so this is all going to be a little approximate, but what we do know renders that speculation...extraordinary, to say the least. Those languages were extinct by 800 years before the VMS, and some of them by many centuries more than that. This would be like sounding out a text from Roman-era Germany using a modern English dictionary. Even if you're right about the language, they are so different that approach could only fail. Gaulish, the closest one, looks like this. "MARTIALIS DANNOTALI IEVRV VCVETE SOSIN CELICNONETIC GOBEDBI DVGIIONTIIO VCVETIN IN ALISIIA". It gets less and less like modern Insular Celtic languages from there.
I will admit to being a little jealous; I quite frankly wish I had the audacity to tell people they were not listening hard enough to Irish sound clips to understand Roman-era Celtic
I will repeat love, THROUGH, in my publication and I've said multiple times in this thread, THROUGH. Understanding the Voynich Through modern phonetic Irish.
More corresponding labels
(16-11-2025, 09:45 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Take your time, step away if you need to and take time to do the background reading at your own pace, then think about - in an intellectually honest way - how what you've learned impacts your ideas, and then either change your ideas if necessary or be prepared to explain how they allign with what we already know.
This was said by Lisa and it reads a bit like scientology? I don't know. I'm fine with doing more background research, of course. I just, I came here to request repeatability.
My interpretation of what LFG meant: A lot of good research has been made by brilliant people before us. There are actually a lot of things we do know about the manuscript, and a lot of things that are highly likely / unlikely. Any theory which makes such big claims (like yours) should be able to address these facts and oddities.
I have a thought-provoking question for you. There are thousands of "solutions" out there very similar to yours. They are just as convinced as you are, but their translations are completely different. So how many of these different solutions can be true at the same time? If your answer is "one", then you should pick a random theory from the pile and tell us why their translation is wrong and why yours is the correct one. I understand if you are not willing to do this as it would take a lot of your time. I am just asking if these thoughts have ever crossed your mind?
(16-11-2025, 11:13 PM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More corresponding labels
Doireann, when will you have the courage to use EVA transcription instead of images?
Don't you like simple methods?
Quote:There are thousands of "solutions" out there very similar to yours.
Exactly.
Doireannjane, you should really read the threads with solutions of Ahmet Ardic or Gerard Cheshire. Or even an old book by Leo Levitov:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You may be surprised how these people were sure about their results. How it all made sense for them.
And they are intelligent people, some with academical degrees. Admitting to be one of them is not a shame at all.
There is also such concept as "4 steps Voynich solution" and it is not a good thing. See if you agree with that:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Think about it
