26-03-2022, 12:11 AM
[quote="ReneZ" pid='49093' dateline='1645874246']
[quote='GeoffreySea' pid='49070' dateline='1645811161']
[Furthermore, the question whether a hypothesis can be refuted or not is a very common one with respect to the Voynich MS, and it is not the right question. A proponent of any hypothesis should provide sufficient convincing evidence, and then it can be discussed.]
Deir René,
If we are talking about evidence, it is already clear what linguistic evidence can be. We show the evidence in turn for the details referred to as the problem. Presenting them with specific answers to specific questions makes them more understandable. For this reason, when we show the word that matches a drawing in the content, we show the meaning of the same word in the old and new dictionaries. What is possible to show in this detail if a dictionary page is not cited as evidence for the specific finding?
We also presented evidence for structural overlaps in sentence structure and word structure with examples.
Please you show just one piece of evidence that your EVA transcription worked. Any transcription that you thought worked here in this platform for many years, as far as I understood, did not work to read VM texts.
Sorry but, all of arguments in this page in many years are a back and forth discussion of arguments for which not a single first-degree evidence exists yet.
Maybe by realizing that EVA variants and others don't work, by posting here you will wake people up not to look in the wrong direction any more. If you do this, of course, it will mean great progress to new start to look new pages with the new transcription.
Do not take the ideas I have written here as rude. I would very much like you to see it as candid statements made in a candid manner. I have benefited greatly from your valuable works. I also gave positive references to these studies in my book. But if you think that VM texts are a natural language, then I suggest you to think that the transcriptions made so far do not work either.
If there is any linguistic evidence that can speak of only one piece of evidence regarding VM today, it is what we have presented.
To understand this, if there are linguists in the group, how would you like to move item by item forward by presenting questions and answers at a material scientific level?
Thank you
[quote='GeoffreySea' pid='49070' dateline='1645811161']
[Furthermore, the question whether a hypothesis can be refuted or not is a very common one with respect to the Voynich MS, and it is not the right question. A proponent of any hypothesis should provide sufficient convincing evidence, and then it can be discussed.]
Deir René,
If we are talking about evidence, it is already clear what linguistic evidence can be. We show the evidence in turn for the details referred to as the problem. Presenting them with specific answers to specific questions makes them more understandable. For this reason, when we show the word that matches a drawing in the content, we show the meaning of the same word in the old and new dictionaries. What is possible to show in this detail if a dictionary page is not cited as evidence for the specific finding?
We also presented evidence for structural overlaps in sentence structure and word structure with examples.
Please you show just one piece of evidence that your EVA transcription worked. Any transcription that you thought worked here in this platform for many years, as far as I understood, did not work to read VM texts.
Sorry but, all of arguments in this page in many years are a back and forth discussion of arguments for which not a single first-degree evidence exists yet.
Maybe by realizing that EVA variants and others don't work, by posting here you will wake people up not to look in the wrong direction any more. If you do this, of course, it will mean great progress to new start to look new pages with the new transcription.
Do not take the ideas I have written here as rude. I would very much like you to see it as candid statements made in a candid manner. I have benefited greatly from your valuable works. I also gave positive references to these studies in my book. But if you think that VM texts are a natural language, then I suggest you to think that the transcriptions made so far do not work either.
If there is any linguistic evidence that can speak of only one piece of evidence regarding VM today, it is what we have presented.
To understand this, if there are linguists in the group, how would you like to move item by item forward by presenting questions and answers at a material scientific level?
Thank you