[Article] [split] A Proposed Mapping of the Voynich Alphabet to an Indo-European Language

[-JKP-]

...
Then please, discard the paper & pursue your obsession with Dr. Cheshire without tarnishing other works which you clearly misunderstand.

Since I score very high on tests of reading comprehension, then perhaps the problem is not that I misunderstand, but that the paper is badly written.

It is very clear that it is badly (inadequately) researched.

If you consider how many times the paper mentions "Dr. Cheshire", it is obviously not me who is obssessed with him.


"Also, many words were completely unusable due to the large character set in Voynich 101 by Glen Claston, which led to many missing characters (3)."

A logic instructor would shake his or her head upon reading this finger-pointing rationalization.


"For the Voynich field, the discoveries made in this study can help researchers to pinpoint and understand the definitions of certain words and where they occur, allowing them to more effectively decipher other words that appear in the text by using context clues and surrounding words. Because certain words that have been translated in this study occur frequently through the manuscript, this study offers certain vocabulary components that can be used to decrypt other portions of the text..."



Yet another example of "Look! We found [created] a few words. Now all of YOU can use this to decipher the text and give us the credit. We can't be bothered to try to generalize our system or figure out WHY it doesn't work with the other tokens and we have no explanation for why the word "[insert your choice of deciphered word]" would appear 30 times per folio in contexts that have nothing to do with the word, we just want to publish a paper."

This lack of academic rigor with regard to VMS papers is getting old and tiresome.