[Article] Solved again...

[ReneZ]

Hi Emma,

I don't use twitter either. It's quite informal, like a personal blog, but can be used by people quite seriously for quick exchanges. It's not reviewed of course, but it is read by a lot of people.

I would also look forward to a more formal and expansive publication.

[Koen G]

The rise and fall of Cheshire-induced Voynich-googling as reflected in blog visitor stats:

   

I think it's over

[Anton]

Until a new decryption

[-JKP-]

I'm sure Cheshire will re-emerge somewhere. He has a lot of bravado.

But it's not easy to find a topic that will generate as much media frenzy as a mystery that has defied decryption for centuries. He had his one shot and launched before getting all his ducks in a row.

[Koen G]

 He had his one shot and launched before getting all his ducks in a row.

In Flemish we'd rather say that he shot a camel , "to make a grave mistake in deed, word or writing".

Paper remains online though, 121k views.

[Anton]

Russian equivalents take account of our climate. One would sit down in a puddle, or strike one's face in mud.

[Hallfiry]

In Flemish we'd rather say that he shot a camel , "to make a grave mistake in deed, word or writing".

In German you'd say "er hat einen Bock geschossen". He shot a billy goat. (Which kinda reminds me of Monty Hall)

[Koen G]

The buck is also shot in standard Dutch and apparently Scandinavian languages. The camel appears to be a newer southern Dutch version, though I quite like its absurdity 

Sadly the last few posts in this thread contain more information about language than Cheshire's entire peer reviewed paper...

[-JKP-]

Careful while you read this, your eyes might roll right out of your head.

Someone who obviously can't see the massive linguistic flaws (no, not little flaws, BIG ones) in Cheshire's argument came out to support him:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Scroll down to Sunday, May 19, 2019:



The scientific allergy to the truth

...
Once he has transformed the MS words into our familiar Latin alphabet, however, he sometimes has to speculate on the meaning of the word at that particular time and place.  And he makes a good fist of that.  And he does that over and over again.  And it is that repeated success that is so convicing. It shows that he has got the key to getting it right.  If he were wrong he might get a few lucky hits but showing that his system works over and over again throughout the MS could only come from his understanding of the MS being correct...


Of course it works over and over. It works over and over because Cheshire cherry-picked different words from different languages to MAKE it work. He created the "language", and when he couldn't come up with a real word (most of them are not)... he made one up, or grabbed one from a non-Romance language.

Except it doesn't work over and over...

What the writer of the article doesn't seem to realize is that Cheshire's solution not only has very few real words, it has no grammar. All "proto-Romance" (vulgar Latin) languages had recognizable grammar and whether it was more similar to emerging French or Italian or Spanish or Romanian doesn't matter because the patterns would still have a recognizable logic, a characteristic that is completely absent from Cheshire's "solution".

Cheshire's solution is not pidgin Latin, as this writer contends. It's not even a good synthetic language. It's just made-up stuff grabbed from here and there that requires a lot of words inserted between each of Cheshire's "translations" to come close to making sense. But even when words are inserted, most of it still doesn't make sense.

[ReneZ]

Careful while you read this, your eyes might roll right out of your head.

[...]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Scroll down to Sunday, May 19, 2019:

Haha, a nice troll post.

Somehow fits in with the rest of that blog, which is, well, no further comment ...