09-08-2017, 04:16 AM
Maybe just on point 2:
it is by not reading the literature and the work of others, that the same things (especially also mistakes) are repeated over and over again.
The most obvious example is that most people who try to decipher this text are looking for a pair of things:
1) a mapping of the Voynich characters to plain text characters (simple substitution)
2) some European language or dialect in which this means something
This isn't going to work, but to know that, one has to read a fair bit.
I do agree that the most important question may not be 'what it says', but rather 'how it was done' and even 'why'.
Your last line suggests to me that you have actually been reading quite a bit.
it is by not reading the literature and the work of others, that the same things (especially also mistakes) are repeated over and over again.
The most obvious example is that most people who try to decipher this text are looking for a pair of things:
1) a mapping of the Voynich characters to plain text characters (simple substitution)
2) some European language or dialect in which this means something
This isn't going to work, but to know that, one has to read a fair bit.
I do agree that the most important question may not be 'what it says', but rather 'how it was done' and even 'why'.
Your last line suggests to me that you have actually been reading quite a bit.