(19-03-2017, 06:46 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(19-03-2017, 05:46 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Looking over the Rainbow and hallucinating.  I guess you believe the Voynich is in German too.

Don't put words in my mouth, stellar, it's a childish and petulant way to respond. I have never said nor implied that I think the Voynich is in German. I've made it quite clear that I am 65% in the constructed-language camp and I have said that if it is a natural language, it bears more resemblance to Turkic and Asian languages than western European languages in the way the parts are put together.


Stellar wrote: ...and you imply I have not worked hard at this or that its really not my realm.

Stellar, I'm not implying it, I'm saying it. Every comment you have made on this forum regarding medieval languages and paleography indicates that you don't know much or anything about them and that you don't look beyond the first thing you find that resembles something you might be able to use to support your assertions. To make progress, you have to learn to let go of things that aren't working.

I think you DO work hard, but you stubbornly pursue avenues that are built on assumptions. It's work, but it's not productive research. It's theory-building, not data collection. There's a big difference.


The character you posted is typical for its time. Most of Europe, from Scotland to Italy, wrote in Gothic cursive in the 15th century.


Addendum: I grabbed some quick examples from my database to compare to the letters you posted. Most of these are early and mid-15th century. They are from nine different countries, which illustrates how widespread a specific style of writing could be, even in the middle ages when travel was difficult. They also show that the examples you posted are not unique, nor are they especially similar to one another when compared to these additional samples:



Stellar, I hope you were not basing your "hunch" that the text is Middle English because of a perceived similarity between the VMS glyph and the Chaucerian glyph.

(19-03-2017, 08:42 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, JKP is right. One of the reasons why people reject your theory is that it's not based on anthing. You said 'these shall be the rules' and then it appeared that you had constructed some absurd system which allows anyone to read anything into the manuscript.

I am a strong opponent of commercial pseudoscience and my heart bleeds when I see you sell one baseless and impossible theory after the other to unsuspecting people.

However, I think that all of this is because you have not been trained in critical thought and any kind of scientific method. And I don't just mean formal training. Don is a carpenter but he did make some contributions that were appreciated. 

The good news is this can be solved. There are some people here, like JKP, who keep on trying to explain to you why your theory and your method are highly problematic. If you follow their advice and actually listen to what they say, you might improve your skills. But if you keep blindly defending your theory you won't get anywhere, and I'd recommend you to either find a different hobby or change your platform to the alien podcast.

Quote:It's theory-building, not data collection. There's a big difference.

(20-03-2017, 03:54 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen, JKP,

Please don't think this is antagonist question - I think it's a genuinely interesting academic question that is worth talking about and if you guys agree, I'll start a new thread for it.

JKP said something I immediately agreed with - then thought it over and realised that it implies what might be a circular argument. I'd like the chance to talk it over.  It's this:

Quote:It's theory-building, not data collection. There's a big difference.

The question that arose was: if data-collection follows the expression of some aim, then what informs that aim would appear to be a belief in things we already suppose -  believe enough to let it define the parameters of the search - while still not having enough evidence to support?  Isn't data collection then just a form of theory-building? 

I suppose some data is value-neutral - like counting details as Koen's recent posts do - but I can't see that there are many forms of data-collection not affected by presumptions and expectations... like supposing the calendar an astrological-use zodiac, then collecting images of astrological charts and astrologers' zodiacs without first stopping to ask 'for what use  was this series of images, inscribed with month-names, intended? Why doesn't it present as a standard series of the Greco-Roman constellations..?'  What other possibilities are there?

So how is data-collection not a function of theory-building.. in your opinion?  I think the question's a fundamental issue..new thread?

Quote:@Diane

It's theory-building!

Diane, I did collect a great deal of information to let this one out of the bag.  To find the axiom for my theory, I'm working with a programmer and I will let you and all the people at ninja have a membership if we decode the VMS entirely!

(20-03-2017, 06:53 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This thread is now locked.