I can't look at their idea in depth during the workday, but scanning through the transliteration table I already have tried most of these Latin correspondences years ago, and what happens is
Their interpretation of Folio 116v doesn't appear to me to be any better or worse than those of others. Certainly, it's plausible, but so are many others. In other words, we need corroboration of some sort to determine which interpretation is right (if any).
I'm not saying The VMS isn't Latin... Occams' Razor screams out that Latin must be considered, but it has to be a convincing transliteration.
Fortunately, I can read French so I will give it a fair reading this evening and see how it holds together.
I hope there are explanations for common patterns like edy (which they have interpreted as Quassus - trembling) because I'm pretty sure words like "trembling" would not occur in almost every line of a manuscript, even if it were poetry.
Similarly, interpreting daiin as "spasms, throat" seems to me to be really stretching credulity, considering that it sometimes occurs several times per line, throughout the manuscript.
Has anyone else noticed that a flush of "Latin" solutions occurred after I posted several blogs explaining Latin abbreviations in 2016 and 2017? (Gibbs, Lockerby, Casanova).
- you get words here and there and even some phrases in Latin (you can do the same in other languages), but there is no cohesive grammar. The parts in between come out unconvincing.
- I also know that interpreting EVA-r as "r" (or various abbreviations with r) does not map well overall (the same for EVA-l). Once again, you can get plenty of isolated words (this is easy in a text as large as the VMS), but it doesn't hold together well when trying to extract sentences.
- I am not convinced that the bench chars map to contra (and its variants). That's not the usual way one expands them in Latin and they are too numerous and letter-like to fully support this interpretation, but I'll withhold judgment until I read the paper.
- I also don't think the cee shapes map to q words, but I will withhold judgment on this as well because I need to read the whole paper to see how their system relates to itself.
Their interpretation of Folio 116v doesn't appear to me to be any better or worse than those of others. Certainly, it's plausible, but so are many others. In other words, we need corroboration of some sort to determine which interpretation is right (if any).
I'm not saying The VMS isn't Latin... Occams' Razor screams out that Latin must be considered, but it has to be a convincing transliteration.
Fortunately, I can read French so I will give it a fair reading this evening and see how it holds together.
I hope there are explanations for common patterns like edy (which they have interpreted as Quassus - trembling) because I'm pretty sure words like "trembling" would not occur in almost every line of a manuscript, even if it were poetry.
Similarly, interpreting daiin as "spasms, throat" seems to me to be really stretching credulity, considering that it sometimes occurs several times per line, throughout the manuscript.
Has anyone else noticed that a flush of "Latin" solutions occurred after I posted several blogs explaining Latin abbreviations in 2016 and 2017? (Gibbs, Lockerby, Casanova).