12-02-2016, 08:02 PM
Rene, you are right. But I hope I am aware of at least the basic assumptions I make. Nearly a year ago I wrote out my own approach to studying the Voynich manuscript, and stated my two core assumptions as, "the text is linguistic and written in the plain".
I know they might not be right, but I feel that most things can flow from them. For example, if the writer was writing a language, and intended it to be written in the plain, then the assumption that spaces delineate words is fairly safe given a 1400s European context. It might actually be wrong, but it is fine within the limits I've set myself: it's the best explanation available.
On the other hand, I've reserved my judgement in some areas. You mention the split between written and spoken languages, and do feel this could be very important. I've been particularly curious as to whether it could explain the statistics of line-end and line-beginning words.
I suppose we will only know whether our assumptions were right if and when a particular approach shows results.
I know they might not be right, but I feel that most things can flow from them. For example, if the writer was writing a language, and intended it to be written in the plain, then the assumption that spaces delineate words is fairly safe given a 1400s European context. It might actually be wrong, but it is fine within the limits I've set myself: it's the best explanation available.
On the other hand, I've reserved my judgement in some areas. You mention the split between written and spoken languages, and do feel this could be very important. I've been particularly curious as to whether it could explain the statistics of line-end and line-beginning words.
I suppose we will only know whether our assumptions were right if and when a particular approach shows results.