From "decryption" to "translation"

[geoffreycaveney]

I am suggesting that "otol" can represent numerous different words, all within the same ms text. It could represent "oikos" on one page, "akase" on another page, "augos" on another page, and so on, and so on.

If we add this, i.e. different spelling, to different meanings (i.e. homonyms), then of course it becomes significantly more complicated, and more degrees of freedom for the interpreter do arise. But what it left is to demonstrate that in action, on a more or less extensive fragment of text and respecting grammar. I do not think anyone has yet been successful in that.

Because people who are very familiar with the language and the script, largely know what word to expect to occur in a given place anyway.

Can we assert that the author was very familiar with the script? I do not see solid grounds for that. On the contrary, the last line of f116v, where only part of it is in Voynichese, suggests that either the author was not very comfortable with the script or that the expressive power of the script was very limited (e.g. not suitable for German language or not suitable to convey meaning of "so", "nim", "gas" and "mich").

what I expected to see IF it was linguistic, just didn't seem to be there, at least not on the vord level.

If a writing conveys meaningful message, then it simply must be linguistic. Just it can be "oddly linguistic". Consider, for example, a dictionary. Is it linguistic? Yes, it is. Does it resemble something like the Bible or the "Origin of Species"? No, it does not. It is common to approach the VMS as if it were a systematic narrative, and to expect relative things from it, but what grounds are there for such an approach? Actually, not very solid ones.

1) Yes, I agree it must be demonstrated in action, on a more or less extensive fragment of text and respecting grammar. I am working on that in the "Greek You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 1" thread. But it is admittedly a slow process.

2) My understanding is that handwriting experts have concluded that the author wrote the script as if he had mastered it. The "ductus" is smooth, as they say: the script flows smoothly from letter to letter. Whereas an author less familiar with the script would be expected to have written with more stops and starts, etc. As for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , that is only a tiny fragment of a few lines on the top of the last page. Can we even be sure You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was written by the same person or people who wrote the rest of the ms? I would be hesitant to base any general conclusions on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

3) Well, we don't know if the Voynich ms conveys any meaningful message. The author could have just been using the characters as artistic decorations, essentially. I don't like this theory, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, especially for sections of the ms such as the final "recipes" section, which does not look nearly as "artistic" as the text in the plants section, for example. But the "artistic decoration" / meaningless text hypothesis is still a very real possibility that we have to keep in mind.