05-12-2021, 01:40 PM
I am specifically referring to decipherment/translation theories here in this thread. Another thread->
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
seems to be much broader in scope.
Frankly if someone's theory is that the Voynich was written by someone Jewish, absent of any specific translation, then they could be right. So I see far less reason to see that theory as problematic or in much need of "debunking". One might argue about the basis on which they justify that idea, but to dismiss the notion completely out of hand seems foolhardy to me. The same applies to many other fairly non-specific theories, or at least theories that could be said to lack much detail. Even when someone says the Voynich is a medieval hoax it is not an unreasonable idea, that needs "debunking", although it is certainly not my idea. By contrast proper translation/decipherment theories have a real degree of specificity.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
seems to be much broader in scope.
Frankly if someone's theory is that the Voynich was written by someone Jewish, absent of any specific translation, then they could be right. So I see far less reason to see that theory as problematic or in much need of "debunking". One might argue about the basis on which they justify that idea, but to dismiss the notion completely out of hand seems foolhardy to me. The same applies to many other fairly non-specific theories, or at least theories that could be said to lack much detail. Even when someone says the Voynich is a medieval hoax it is not an unreasonable idea, that needs "debunking", although it is certainly not my idea. By contrast proper translation/decipherment theories have a real degree of specificity.