06-03-2019, 05:56 PM
Hi geoffreycaveney (and a belated welcome to the forum!),
Of course, I would like the Voynich text to have a meaning which could be recovered. I accept the idea that it may just be gibberish, although I hope it isn't.
I hope I don't sound like I'm splitting hairs here, but as far as I know "glossolalia" is a relatively recent phenomenon: it seems to be a product of German and English prayer groups in the mid-1800's, popularized by Pentecostal churches in the early 1900's. In fact, the term "glossolalia" doesn't appear in any dictionaries before 1879 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). As a result, I am reluctant to apply this term to the Voynich text.
For the middle ages, there are certainly instances of invented languages: Hildegarde von Bingen's Lingua Ignota is perhaps the most famous example. However, even the Lingua Ignota is somewhat rooted in latin, and certainly the sentences are structured in ways that are inspired by, and often mixed with, proper latin.
Strings like your "...arlamaynunabalinabalinabalikamarila..." are characteristic of modern christian glossolalia and are very different from the structured Lingua Ignota.
Although modern glossolalia is often described as synonymous with "speaking in tongues", earlier understandings of speaking in tongues were rather different: in the Bible, speaking in tongues means that the apostles were able to be understood by foreigners, like an instant translation. "Speaking in tongues" made language clearer to their audience, not more obscure.
Admittedly, I am not an expert in the history of linguistics, but I think it is always important to keep in mind the ways in which things were understood at the time the Voynich was written.
Of course, I would like the Voynich text to have a meaning which could be recovered. I accept the idea that it may just be gibberish, although I hope it isn't.
I hope I don't sound like I'm splitting hairs here, but as far as I know "glossolalia" is a relatively recent phenomenon: it seems to be a product of German and English prayer groups in the mid-1800's, popularized by Pentecostal churches in the early 1900's. In fact, the term "glossolalia" doesn't appear in any dictionaries before 1879 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). As a result, I am reluctant to apply this term to the Voynich text.
For the middle ages, there are certainly instances of invented languages: Hildegarde von Bingen's Lingua Ignota is perhaps the most famous example. However, even the Lingua Ignota is somewhat rooted in latin, and certainly the sentences are structured in ways that are inspired by, and often mixed with, proper latin.
Strings like your "...arlamaynunabalinabalinabalikamarila..." are characteristic of modern christian glossolalia and are very different from the structured Lingua Ignota.
Although modern glossolalia is often described as synonymous with "speaking in tongues", earlier understandings of speaking in tongues were rather different: in the Bible, speaking in tongues means that the apostles were able to be understood by foreigners, like an instant translation. "Speaking in tongues" made language clearer to their audience, not more obscure.
Admittedly, I am not an expert in the history of linguistics, but I think it is always important to keep in mind the ways in which things were understood at the time the Voynich was written.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)