Language of Voynich manuscript.

[Diane]

This 'esperanto' or 'dog-latin' theory seems to be a current fad.

It underlies the 'Senzar' theory of Viktor V. Mykhaylov, reviewed earlier this year by Nicholas Pelling 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


It is also, basically, the notion that informs a narrative created by Gerard Cheshire at virtually the same time.  This says that he imagines the manuscript  a "proto-Romance" and that this imagined 'proto-Romance' was ... and I quote: "a  combination of simplified spoken Latin and words taken from various other languages....   an effective way of communicating between people from many lands."  Cheshire is now asking others assistance to find evidence to add more plausibility to his idea  ( see e.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).  

Pelling's review - with others' comments - is also recent
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


I'm not sure whether its just serendipity, or whether our 'luiscrassus' is a pseudonymn for the one or the other of those writers, but I might suggest that any asserted translation or glossary should be very specific about the folio(s) and position on the folio(s) these items are thought to exist.   Above all, surely, one needs a three-tier transcription for any asserted translation.

First, the writer's own transcription of the original text (just so we can check that he/she is seeing the characters as we do); next, a phonetic transliteration, so we can see whether or not the sounds are matched consistently to the glyphs; and then finally a word-by-word translation.  After which, a nicely tidied-up English rendering would be nice.

Might I suggest that this be a regular practice for those who wish members to spend their own time and energy reading and commenting on claimed translations... even before efforts are made to define the nature of the language or languages?

Just a suggestion.