geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

[ChenZheChina]

The issue of 'eipan' was addressed here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It is the immediate consequence of working 'backwards' i.e. concentrating on the Voynich to plaintext conversion rather than the other way round.

Thanks, René. It seems that Geoffrey’s explanation about different είπαν (eípan) is like this:

The most significant difficulty in explaining the vowel representations in these forms is the presence of Voynich [o] between [ee] and [d] in the first and third cases [(t)eeodaiin] and [keeodal]. The only thing I can say about this at the present stage is that I note the well-known (to Voynich researchers) distinction between "Currier A dialect", which almost never writes the combination [ed], and "Currier B dialect", which very frequently writes the combination [ed]. But Currier A dialect does use the combination [eod]. So these forms here appear to reflect the "Currier A dialect" style, avoiding the combination [ed].

Geoffrey

I have to say that this is not persuasive. Before explaining why there is an [o] between [ee] and [d], I would like to see why [d] is used here instead of [p] first. As I posted above, the idea that [d] being substitute for [p] and [f] is not so firm by itself.

Moreover, in my opinion, why combination [ed] has to be avoided is another question that has to be answered for the whole theory to work.