On Reddit (I have no plans to sign up for Reddit), Weiler wrote this in his defense:
"The parts of the solution presented so far and also the further resolutions are not based on the fact that the Voynich Code follows the system of abbreviations used in the Middle Ages and its usual rules of application. Rather, a completely independent secret code was constructed based on these basic principles, which is subject to its own new set of rules. Statements such as "This does not correspond to the usual use in medieval manuscripts" are therefore absolutely correct, as in my opinion this was exactly the aim of the author of the Voynich manuscript."
But his defense misses the point...
I want to make it clear to everyone who reads my comments, I am NOT criticizing Weiler's statement that the concepts may have been applied to Voynichese (many of us have already said this is possible, including me, in countless blogs)...
I am concerned that the "facts" he specifically wrote about Latin abbreviations (the "teaching" parts) are wrong. Completely wrong. This means he hasn't done his research, he hasn't looked at real manuscripts enough to understand what Cappelli wrote. His misconception of the facts is also problematic because you can't start from a poor understanding of Latin and then extrapolate that to a correct understanding of how those concepts could be applied to Voynichese.
What Weiler is proposing isn't new. Many people with knowledge of Latin have tried this application of abbreviation concepts to Voynichese. So have people who don't know Latin... Paul Patrick Lockerby tried to do the same thing as Weiler several years ago (with insufficient knowledge of Latin and Latin abbreviations)... and it didn't work.
"The parts of the solution presented so far and also the further resolutions are not based on the fact that the Voynich Code follows the system of abbreviations used in the Middle Ages and its usual rules of application. Rather, a completely independent secret code was constructed based on these basic principles, which is subject to its own new set of rules. Statements such as "This does not correspond to the usual use in medieval manuscripts" are therefore absolutely correct, as in my opinion this was exactly the aim of the author of the Voynich manuscript."
But his defense misses the point...
I want to make it clear to everyone who reads my comments, I am NOT criticizing Weiler's statement that the concepts may have been applied to Voynichese (many of us have already said this is possible, including me, in countless blogs)...
I am concerned that the "facts" he specifically wrote about Latin abbreviations (the "teaching" parts) are wrong. Completely wrong. This means he hasn't done his research, he hasn't looked at real manuscripts enough to understand what Cappelli wrote. His misconception of the facts is also problematic because you can't start from a poor understanding of Latin and then extrapolate that to a correct understanding of how those concepts could be applied to Voynichese.
What Weiler is proposing isn't new. Many people with knowledge of Latin have tried this application of abbreviation concepts to Voynichese. So have people who don't know Latin... Paul Patrick Lockerby tried to do the same thing as Weiler several years ago (with insufficient knowledge of Latin and Latin abbreviations)... and it didn't work.