14-09-2020, 01:57 AM
(13-09-2020, 06:03 PM)Emma May Smith wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Geoffrey, your example of Linear B is apt. The evidence from pictograms, people, and numbers was all internal to the documents they were studying. Advances such as the Kober triplets were based on observations of patterns in the text and not from outside information. Guesses about how the script worked were based on general principles rather than drawing from specific scripts. Ventris's guesses of town names was the last step before the script unraveled (into a language he didn't expect!). So much work by Kober, Ventris, and others, went into getting to that last stage.
The Voynich manuscript contains vast numbers of patterns we should draw on to give us a solid understanding of the text, the script, and the potential underlying language before we make guesses. I'm happy for people to use hypothetical languages to explore ideas (I do this too), but presenting them as a fully-formed theory is deleterious. It erodes trust among researchers because it promotes the idea that research on the Voynich is nothing more than flying kites and watching others shoot them down. I have read dozens of theories like yours from which i have learnt nothing. Not one thing. I beg you - really truly beg you - please take research on the Voynich seriously.
Emma, allow me to ask you the same question I asked Koen: Does any of the linguistic statistical analysis of the text that you, Rene, and many others have done, give you any confidence or reason to reject the depressing but frankly plausible "hoax" hypothesis of Gordon Rugg, Andreas Schinner, et al., as presented for example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? (Again, I don't like the use of the term "hoax" here, but what they mean is that the text is meaningless.) Does any linguistic statistical analysis whatsoever provide concrete evidence that the text is meaningful rather than meaningless?