Can VM be written in vowelless Latin?

[farmerjohn]

Dear MarcoP, everything you wrote is very very (very) interesting and I hope you will not edit or delete this post so we can reread it in future.

Thank you for your kind words. You have quoted my post, so this invaluable gem will be available to posterity in its original form even if I edit it.

But still I have a question for you. If one decides to publish his solution, which is mapping to some language, and reveals the dictionary, translations, word formation rules, phonetical rules, grammatical rules and with all that it's possible to translate the whole VMS - is it enough for you? Or you need something else? Or on the contrary something from this list you don't need? Precise list will be appreciated.

Of course I am interested in these subjects, as long as they are discussed on the basis of verifiable evidence from the corpus of the proposed target language.  You have made clear that you are not interested in this, and your work is clearly based on this peculiar methodological choice. I will also add that I am more interested in "analysis" (sorry, David) than in "revelation".

As an example of the analytical approach I appreciate, some researchers have proposed tests that can help validate the results of a linguistic interpretation. You mentioned two of them here:

Two tests for solutions were mentioned in other thread. I don't find the one of Klaus Schmeh to be very usefull, but the other one (translating most frequent words, mentioned by ReneZ) is much more interesting.

You dismissed Klaus' proposal without a single word of comment. What a pity! Why don't you try it and see what happens?

You say Rene's test is "interesting" (like my post you kindly quoted above) and totally ignore its results. I wonder what your "interest" is, but of course this again involves discussing evidence, so it's understandable that you don't care.

I attach a table where I have applied Rene's test to three different Latin texts (excerpts from Virgil, the Vulgate, and Mattioli's 1554 book), a medieval Italian poem (Dante's Divina Commedia) and your own fake Latin. For each sample, I have only considered the 10 most frequent words. The benchmark I used (first column) is a list of the 10,000 most common Latin words I found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Honestly, I don't know on which works the list is based, but empirically it results to be consistent with actual texts.

For each word, I count the position in the target lists. Words that are so rare that they don't appear in the list get a distance value of 10001.
Taking the average position of each word in the target list results in a "distance" measure in the range "5.5-10001".  A good match will have a low value, a poor match a high value.
As expected, the three Latin texts get low values. Virgil has the highest distance (25) so the target list must be based on late Latin.
Italian has a 100 times higher value: 2678: this gives us a measure for a language which is definitely different from Latin, but not totally unrelated. We can safely assume that all Latin texts will produce a value considerably lower than this.

Your fake-Latin has a distance which is more than double as high as Italian: 6088. Obviously, the fake is not Latin. Possibly, the figure is made clearer by considering the last column: according to this measure, Shakespeare's English is closer to Latin than the fake!

MarcoP, please allow me not to address points I've already addressed. I don't want to go on the second lap.

On new points:

I still wait for the list

Rene's test deals with words, Schmeh's deals with phrases. At the moment Rene's one is more suitable for me, for more developed theory one can use Schmeh's one.

Also subtype of Rene's test is inverse of Rene's test - proposed translations of frequent Voynich words must also be frequent. And this variant is much more important than the direct one. IMHO, of course