Perhaps an illustrative way of looking at this, is to try to follow what the person did, when composing the Voynich MS text. This is from one of the most recent examples, in post #103.
The proposal is that the following plain text was encoded into the MS:
Now the fist question is whether this is valid Middle English. I am no expert, but it looks extremely weird to me. The explanation of this text in modern English is proposed to be:
This raises two more problems: first of all this is not really a completely sensible text. It looks like the earlier mentioned "word salad" to me. The second is, that, if one really translated this into middle English, one would not end up with the proposed plain text.
However, when encoding:
it is first transformed by the encoder into:
This involves:
- numerous deletions: i, u, ch , a , a , ac , i , t , (maybe not complete)
- numerous changes: ynge -> K (while K is also K) , i -> Y , cc -> K , y -> i , ie -> YO , e -> Y ,
- at least one introduction of an e.
Finally EVA transliteration:
Now if one wanted to test if this could really work on some real middle English text (and there are plenty examples), then one would still have to make some arbitrary changes like in what I called the "first transformation".
There is simply no way of testing this....
The proposal is that the following plain text was encoded into the MS:
Quote:" kirche-eek -- irour-isynge, picchynge, path-isynge -- is also accitynge tir-biri "
" siest side, lo! sis dis-lisynge "
Now the fist question is whether this is valid Middle English. I am no expert, but it looks extremely weird to me. The explanation of this text in modern English is proposed to be:
Quote:" The Church also -- seeing wrath, equipping with weapons, seeing the path -- is also summoning the three regions "
" You fall down sideways, lo! [your] good fortune being ruined "
This raises two more problems: first of all this is not really a completely sensible text. It looks like the earlier mentioned "word salad" to me. The second is, that, if one really translated this into middle English, one would not end up with the proposed plain text.
However, when encoding:
Quote:" kirche-eek -- irour-isynge, picchynge, path-isynge -- is also accitynge tir-biri "
" siest side, lo! sis dis-lisynge "
it is first transformed by the encoder into:
Quote:" KrcheeeK irOrisK pYcK pthisK isOsl KtisK tir iriB "
" sYOs Ydis lO sis dislisYeK "
This involves:
- numerous deletions: i, u, ch , a , a , ac , i , t , (maybe not complete)
- numerous changes: ynge -> K (while K is also K) , i -> Y , cc -> K , y -> i , ie -> YO , e -> Y ,
- at least one introduction of an e.
Finally EVA transliteration:
Quote:[ yroleeey arairaly pchody tshaly alols ykaly kar aram ]
[ dchol chokal saiin dal okalsalchey ]
Now if one wanted to test if this could really work on some real middle English text (and there are plenty examples), then one would still have to make some arbitrary changes like in what I called the "first transformation".
There is simply no way of testing this....