05-12-2021, 10:57 PM
The reason this so far has been a one-man conversation is that this a truly problematic situation. There have been, over several years, a succession of proposed linguistic interpretations, proclaimed translations, suddenly flaring up - and then cooling off and fading away - trying to interpret the 'Voynichese' "language." And from these failures, how might we hope to 'get a jump on' any further 'potential' failures, as they will probably turn up in the prospective future? Do these failures fit into 'types' or classifications? And, if so, what types are they? And will the next proposed 'linguistic solution' fit into one of these prior categories? This sort of thing devolves into a fur ball of further problems.
As an alternative, perhaps, there could be the setting of a certain initial standard for any sort of "formal" consideration < whatever that is.> Two simple standards of interpretation have long been set forth: (1) that it is repeatable, and (2) that it makes sense. No reason that these standards should alter normal discussion, however, as they have yet to take effect.
The contest is to turn VMs glyphs into a known language. Not to present a 'translation', but to demonstrate a methodology. So many ways to go wrong, but is there, was there originally, a way to go right?
As an alternative, perhaps, there could be the setting of a certain initial standard for any sort of "formal" consideration < whatever that is.> Two simple standards of interpretation have long been set forth: (1) that it is repeatable, and (2) that it makes sense. No reason that these standards should alter normal discussion, however, as they have yet to take effect.
The contest is to turn VMs glyphs into a known language. Not to present a 'translation', but to demonstrate a methodology. So many ways to go wrong, but is there, was there originally, a way to go right?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)