10-04-2021, 06:59 PM
Fair enough, although I will observe that often one of the criticisms of such "language solutions", whether they be in Greek, Polish, Flemish, German, or what have you, is that the word order of the so-called "word salad" is wrong, scrambled, unidiomatic, not valid syntax for that language, and the like. If this were the main issue, then a vord re-ordering step could potentially resolve such problems and be part of the solution. However, at least in the case of my own previous proposed language solutions, I do not get the impression that this was the primary problematic issue -- that is to say, even if I had had the freedom to choose any vord re-ordering I like, my strong impression is that no such rearrangement could have satisfied and resolved the criticisms leveled at my proposed solutions. Serious issues with the logically necessary grammatical forms of the individual words/vords, as well as with the degrees of freedom of the phonetic interpretation of the Voynichese characters/units as sounds/letters in the target language, would still have remained. These are both fundamentally vord-level issues, and no amount of re-ordering of the vords would resolve such problems related to the internal structure of the vords.
Example: I could have added a vord re-ordering step to my interpretation of "bieh cu ipH Htilie[g]" (the [g] is still in EVA): "Transpose the positions of the first and last vords" in this four-vord phrase. Then I could argue that the phrase can now be interpreted to mean "Otilie(?) zuip(t) bie[r]", Dutch for "Otilie swigs beer". So there you have it now, Anton, a "language solution" which would assume re-ordering of the vords.
However, I am afraid that this little refinement will not convince Rene, Koen, and others that we are actually reading Dutch here. Despite the now apparently correct vord order and word order for Dutch, several difficulties remain, and they concern issues of the internal structure of individual vords. The biggest problem is that I have simply conjured up the final "-t" in "zuipt" out of whole cloth, yet it is precisely this letter that makes the whole phrase grammatical Dutch rather than just a "word salad" with a name, a verb root, and a related noun root. The next problems concern the final letters of "bier" and "Otilie(?)".
Of course reading "H" as "O" in "Otilie(?)" is a big leap as well, all the more so because the same character (EVA [y]) apparently stands for the critical "-t" at the end of "zuipt". Now I could write a tortured but formally logical process even to account for this -- along the lines of "when "H" appears at the end of one vord and the beginning of the next vord, the letter after the second "H" (which is "t" here) is added at the place of the first "H", and the second "H" becomes a vowel (here "O")". This convoluted but formally logical cryptographic process solves the two biggest problems with this interpretation of the vords in this phrase. But again, I doubt I could convince anyone that this is the actual process by which the Voynich ms text was created.
I note in passing that the problems with the final letters/characters/units of the vords and words in this phrase confirm the points I made in the original post in this thread about the problem of word-final letters and vord-final units in any Germanic interpretation of the Voynich ms text.
Example: I could have added a vord re-ordering step to my interpretation of "bieh cu ipH Htilie[g]" (the [g] is still in EVA): "Transpose the positions of the first and last vords" in this four-vord phrase. Then I could argue that the phrase can now be interpreted to mean "Otilie(?) zuip(t) bie[r]", Dutch for "Otilie swigs beer". So there you have it now, Anton, a "language solution" which would assume re-ordering of the vords.
However, I am afraid that this little refinement will not convince Rene, Koen, and others that we are actually reading Dutch here. Despite the now apparently correct vord order and word order for Dutch, several difficulties remain, and they concern issues of the internal structure of individual vords. The biggest problem is that I have simply conjured up the final "-t" in "zuipt" out of whole cloth, yet it is precisely this letter that makes the whole phrase grammatical Dutch rather than just a "word salad" with a name, a verb root, and a related noun root. The next problems concern the final letters of "bier" and "Otilie(?)".
Of course reading "H" as "O" in "Otilie(?)" is a big leap as well, all the more so because the same character (EVA [y]) apparently stands for the critical "-t" at the end of "zuipt". Now I could write a tortured but formally logical process even to account for this -- along the lines of "when "H" appears at the end of one vord and the beginning of the next vord, the letter after the second "H" (which is "t" here) is added at the place of the first "H", and the second "H" becomes a vowel (here "O")". This convoluted but formally logical cryptographic process solves the two biggest problems with this interpretation of the vords in this phrase. But again, I doubt I could convince anyone that this is the actual process by which the Voynich ms text was created.
I note in passing that the problems with the final letters/characters/units of the vords and words in this phrase confirm the points I made in the original post in this thread about the problem of word-final letters and vord-final units in any Germanic interpretation of the Voynich ms text.