Cvetka's Slovenian Theory Thread

[tavie]

Koen, thank you for this favour. 
Although EVA was not perfect, I was able to recognize enough words to convince me that the language of the VM was medieval Slovenian, which was much different than Slovenian language today. 

I don't see how you can be certain without a translation of a decent chunk of text to back up your theory.  All I see on the site are "translations" of individual words or at most a couple.  It is incredibly common to spot resemblances between Voynich words on the individual level words in a language - especially when you make tweaks to enhance that resemblance - and then get excited about it.  This site is littered with examples.  Check out the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. theory, and there's at least three separate theories by Geoffrey on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and most recently You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  And those are only some very recent ones.  

All these different theories encompass different languages from different families, assigning different letters to the Voynich characters.  But they all have something in common:  the person with the theory rapidly becomes "convinced" it is true on the basis of isolated words.  They believe it can't possibly be a coincidence.  But any subsequent "translations" of full sentences result in a nonsensical word salad, or the translation is never done at all because it proves to be too hard.

If you want to distinguish your theory from those, you need to:

1. Work towards "translations" of full paragraphs, if not pages, ideally spread out across the different sections of the manuscript.  The aim would be to show that the text makes sense in context:  both in relation to the content in nearby paragraphs but also in relation to any imagery.  This should also provide you with evidence that the changes you make in order to find a Slovenian equivalent are part of a pattern, consistent with grammar and phonology.
   
2. Explain how your theory deals with the unusual behaviour of Voynichese.  You've put a lot of work into that site but I haven't found anything that covers this.  It looks like another simple substitution theory to me.  How does your theory explain how some letters are almost always found at the end of a line; how some are only word-initial; why most paragraphs begin with only one or two letters; why certain letters or pairings dominate line-initials and others are massively underrepresented at the start of a line or even virtually non-existent?  How does it explain why some initials seem "attracted" to following certain finals, or why there are long sequences of similar words?  How does it explain the Currier/scribal differences?  It's not enough to ascribe the latter to inflection in abstract terms. 
   
3. Be sceptical of yourself and your findings.  Avoid You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.   Being convinced from so early on sets you up for massive confirmation bias.  This has happened to every "Voynichese is Language X" theory that I can remember and has been fatal for it.  Actively force yourself to think of reasons why each conclusion could be wrong.