This happens when one is too brief in expressing his opinions 
Tiltman's opinion has been quoted by now. While he allows for the possibility that it could be some more complicated combination of ciphers, he also expresses his uncertainty about his opinions.
What matters most to me is that both failed to solve it. Friedman specifically writes on several occasions that he admits defeat. I'll see if I can find an example over the weekend.
Furthermore, when the person who is regarded by many as the top expert in the history of this field (i.e. W.Friedman) says, that he thinks it is like a constructed language, this is equivalent with saying that he thinks it is not a cipher.
We are uncertain about what he (or, in fact, his wife) has tried exactly.
We might not even fully understand it because, as JKP suggests correctly, he was probably one of these people whose minds don't work only according to set procedures.
But that's speculation.
Now since
1) I know that Nick is very familiar with the work of Friedman (both of them) and Tiltman, and
2) I don't believe for a second that he would simply disregard their opinions and
3) he is one of the world's most knowledgeable people about the Voynich MS
if he strongly believes that there is a cipher at work, this must be according to a wider definition of cipher.
I don't know if the 'stroke encoding' method once proposed by Elmar Vogt would count as a cipher, for example.
If it were something like that, at the end people might even be arguing whether it was a cipher or not even when it is solved.
About language: cipher and language are not mutually exclusive. If it is a cipher, there is a language behind it. Depending on the method of the cipher, the various properties of the language may have been preserved, altered, or utterly destroyed.
For me, the opposite of language is 'meaningless'.
When Tiltman writes, "Languages simply do not behave in this way", he is not speaking as an expert in linguistics.
The prefix/suffix rule he present in his paper (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is basically exactly how Mandarin Chinese works.
(Of course, his table is simplified and works only for a fraction of the Voynich words - for Mandarin, a complete table can be set up - plenty of examples in the net).
I'm sure this is still too brief...
It's an unreadable text, not necessarily an unknown language.
The problem is not that there is no way to reconcile an unreadable text with a medieval Western European origin.
There are many possible ways, but we just haven't found the right one.
Quote:I am fully convinced that the conclusions from Friedman and Tiltman (that it's not a cipher) are not to be challenged.
The key point is, though, what they mean precisely with 'cipher'.
Nowadays, Nick Pelling is clearly in the 'cipher' camp. However, he may have a wider definition of cipher than what Friedman and Tiltman intended.
Tiltman's opinion has been quoted by now. While he allows for the possibility that it could be some more complicated combination of ciphers, he also expresses his uncertainty about his opinions.
What matters most to me is that both failed to solve it. Friedman specifically writes on several occasions that he admits defeat. I'll see if I can find an example over the weekend.
Furthermore, when the person who is regarded by many as the top expert in the history of this field (i.e. W.Friedman) says, that he thinks it is like a constructed language, this is equivalent with saying that he thinks it is not a cipher.
We are uncertain about what he (or, in fact, his wife) has tried exactly.
We might not even fully understand it because, as JKP suggests correctly, he was probably one of these people whose minds don't work only according to set procedures.
But that's speculation.
Now since
1) I know that Nick is very familiar with the work of Friedman (both of them) and Tiltman, and
2) I don't believe for a second that he would simply disregard their opinions and
3) he is one of the world's most knowledgeable people about the Voynich MS
if he strongly believes that there is a cipher at work, this must be according to a wider definition of cipher.
I don't know if the 'stroke encoding' method once proposed by Elmar Vogt would count as a cipher, for example.
If it were something like that, at the end people might even be arguing whether it was a cipher or not even when it is solved.
About language: cipher and language are not mutually exclusive. If it is a cipher, there is a language behind it. Depending on the method of the cipher, the various properties of the language may have been preserved, altered, or utterly destroyed.
For me, the opposite of language is 'meaningless'.
When Tiltman writes, "Languages simply do not behave in this way", he is not speaking as an expert in linguistics.
The prefix/suffix rule he present in his paper (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is basically exactly how Mandarin Chinese works.
(Of course, his table is simplified and works only for a fraction of the Voynich words - for Mandarin, a complete table can be set up - plenty of examples in the net).
I'm sure this is still too brief...
Quote: wrote:But how do we possibly reconcile a 100% medieval Western European origin for the VMS with the fact that it is written in an otherwise unknown language?
It's an unreadable text, not necessarily an unknown language.
The problem is not that there is no way to reconcile an unreadable text with a medieval Western European origin.
There are many possible ways, but we just haven't found the right one.