Historical Context

[Ahmet Ardıç]

[All translations proposed so far have one of two problems. 

1) It only works for a few words, translating a paragraph is impossible. This is because the beginning is easy. Pick a random language, and you will be able to start translating select Voynichese words. This works with any language. The true test is making sense of larger pieces of text. 

2) If they do manage to translate a larger text, the infamous "interpretative step" is involved. This is a step in the translation process where the translator uses the law of large numbers in his favors. For example, he may allow himself to add or change vowels. He will look for enough freedom to be able to turn any input into a string of existing words. The result is often still garbage. 

Changing to a related language does not fix the problem. There are fundamental properties of the Voynichese system we do not understand yet. Like why is entropy so low? As long as these problems aren't addressed first, you can plug in any language and you will fail, or end up in one of the two scenarios described above.]

Dear Koen,

If you don't mind, I would like to write clearly that both of the items you mentioned cannot belong to our work. We have explained all the details that are expected to be explained as the main problem, by showing their proofs. We respond to specific details by showing evidence. It is interesting and thought-provoking that you can write this down while none of the evidence we have put forward in our previous comments has been disproved.

To this day, clearly drawings & word overlaps have been searched and not found except for a few anagrams. Today, we showed more than 90 matches and proved that some of them did not have a single phonetic change in 600 years by sharing the dictionary links. We also presented evidence of many structural matches, such as word repetitions, absence of some sounds at the beginning and end of words. So shouldn't the evidence we present be refute first? If this cannot be disproved when we show a proof, it is not possible to ignore them with such generalizations, it will just be a waste of time.

Thanks