TED-ED Video

[Torsten]

Torsten

Here is the statement:

"Cryptologists say the writing has all the characteristics of a real language."


Is that really true? Is that the general consensus among cryptologists? Is there a general consensus among cryptologists?

I'm very keen on the possibility that the Voynich text is ultimately a natural language or something very similar, and I wouldn't quite agree with this statement (not that I'm a cryptologist either).

This is what Cryptologists say about the Voynich manuscript:

Good word, I try to be humble about my own position and you give me chapter and verse! Maybe I should simply defend my research position unstintingly, fail to respond to genuine problems, and continue hammering on with the same beliefs year after year?

There is no contradiction between your statement and what I say here. My post was in first place a response to JKPs question "Is that the general consensus among cryptologists?" 

In my eyes it doesn't matter if you are a cryptologist or not. The deciphering of undeciphered scripts is so special that nobody is a specialist to this subject. For instance Stephen Chrisomalis‏ is a linguist and his post is also interesting: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. It is a response to a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of two physicists about the Voynich Manuscript (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).