The incompatibility of Voynichese with natural human language

[Davidsch]

As you mention one, there are many different ways of communication, some are considered, and some not. But finally this is a matter of agreement: when is Pluto a star and when not?

To take the example of the invented words in the Lingua Ignota, here a conscious departure from well-known languages such as Latin or German was made. Known languages are based on the agreement of the meaning of words.  Invented words offer no value because known words already exist in the other known languages and no conceptual expansion takes place. At least not in the Lingua Ignota where only known words are "translated". If this "artificial language" is supposed to make sense, it is only that the circle of recipients of a text should not be expanded but drastically reduced. The changed grammar does the rest here. The question is no longer whether Pluto is a star or not, but what Pluto is in its "translation". So the planned language is anti-communicative and if the VMS is based on such a language, then it is obviously about demarcation and not about the will to communicate. This may be a banal statement in itself, but it does raise the crucial question: if a manuscript, like the VMS, is unique but is not communicated, is there really a language behind it? Language serves the purpose of communication, but where this does not take place, a fundamental requirement for it is not fulfilled.  If an intention of "non-communication" is assumed (no marginal notes, no accompanying text or similar), this is especially true. What remains is a construct that pretends to be a language but is not in the true sense. This would be true regardless of whether the authors assumed that the text contains meaningful information or not.

I like your reasoning. (but I hate the reference to Lingua Ignota because it has a entirely different connotation, but that's beside the point)

Suppose I have no language. Suppose I want to define as follows: every word that starts with 3 = black. and every word starting with 2=hold water of some kind.  Now with this simple but confusing definition, we can create words, that only hold "value" for a small part.
For example: 3MOUSE. I want to use that word for a black stone which is undefined, (because I do not know what kind of stone it exactly is) Probably when I see another stone which is also black, but entirely different in size and composition, I simply also call it 3MOUSE. I could write 23 or I could write 32 for black water. The order does not matter to me. water black or black water is not different in my simple system, because I define my own system and make the rules.
Now, can you translate that system into OUR current language? I think you can't,  because I am using concepts, aka notions, and not per definition translatable or decode-able objects as we use them now.

>>..if a manuscript, like the VMS, is unique but is not communicated, is there really a language behind it?..
You will have to ask that question to the author of the VMS. Perhaps he spoke Latin, or perhaps he was a mute, we don't know.
What's the intention of the manuscript is also a question that has to be approached seperately.

In relation to the VMS, I call this "a system", because I did not yet decided, what it exactly is. However, it can not be translated into a language directly. The Voynich system is fairly simple, consistent and descriptive. Of course, for the layman, let's say the average president, or the average new reporter you can say 23=black water, and that will be acceptable, but for serious researchers this will not be sufficient. Perhaps when I finish my current research(es) I will again focus on the VMS and write everything down, but in the mean time, I would like it very much if there would grow support for the philosophical path on the language in the VMS, as sketched. Once you understand what I mean, I think it would be fairly easy to construct the system of the language but it's quite a task and you don't get paid. ;-)