I am not sure if the opening post is meant to argue that the MS 'could be gibberish', or that it 'is more likely to be gibberish'. The second option could also be an even stronger opinion, such as expressed in the past by Gordon Rugg and by Torsten Timm.
These are two very different points.
Indeed, the MS could be gibberish. At least, I am of that opinion.
On the other hand 'likely to be gibberish' would require some good arguments.
A bullet list is presented, but most of these do not actually constitute evidence for gibberish. They are non-sequiturs, mostly of the kind that I once described in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the lemon-banana story).
For each bullet one can find plenty of cases where a meaningful text fully fits the description.
Arabic texts have spaces that are not word separators. That spaces are there does not prove that they are word separators. 'Units' in Arabic consisting of only one consonant exist. That's also true for some European languages. In any case, we can't even be sure which characters in the Voynich MS are consonants.
There are plenty of contemporary documents without punctuation. An arbitrary search immediately gave me two out of four. And the MS has clear paragraphs.
If the label 'otol' means 'red' or 'north-east' or 'important' or 'hot in the second degree' or '24' it can appear near all the items that have been listed. Since we don't have a clue what it means, we can't draw any conclusion from it.
There are several written languages that cannot yet be understood, yet they are certainly meaningful texts. Even linear-A was only deciphered not that long ago.
Now apart from the fact that none of the arguments really point to meaningless text, one thing that is missing is a similar bullet list that the text is likely to be meaningful.
Without writing up the list, one can already say that all of these arguments have similar flaws. They are equally far from being proof.
In the end we have one list of semi-convincing points for, and one list of semi-convincing arguments against a meaningful text, and it is a complete stand-off.
These are two very different points.
Indeed, the MS could be gibberish. At least, I am of that opinion.
On the other hand 'likely to be gibberish' would require some good arguments.
A bullet list is presented, but most of these do not actually constitute evidence for gibberish. They are non-sequiturs, mostly of the kind that I once described in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the lemon-banana story).
For each bullet one can find plenty of cases where a meaningful text fully fits the description.
Arabic texts have spaces that are not word separators. That spaces are there does not prove that they are word separators. 'Units' in Arabic consisting of only one consonant exist. That's also true for some European languages. In any case, we can't even be sure which characters in the Voynich MS are consonants.
There are plenty of contemporary documents without punctuation. An arbitrary search immediately gave me two out of four. And the MS has clear paragraphs.
If the label 'otol' means 'red' or 'north-east' or 'important' or 'hot in the second degree' or '24' it can appear near all the items that have been listed. Since we don't have a clue what it means, we can't draw any conclusion from it.
There are several written languages that cannot yet be understood, yet they are certainly meaningful texts. Even linear-A was only deciphered not that long ago.
Now apart from the fact that none of the arguments really point to meaningless text, one thing that is missing is a similar bullet list that the text is likely to be meaningful.
Without writing up the list, one can already say that all of these arguments have similar flaws. They are equally far from being proof.
In the end we have one list of semi-convincing points for, and one list of semi-convincing arguments against a meaningful text, and it is a complete stand-off.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)