To what extent should the translation respect the grammar?

[cvetkakocj@rogers.com]

One of the reasons why the various translations of Voynich were not accepted was that they did not respect the grammar of the proposed language.

This morning I am leafing through the manuscript, listening to a song by Vianney, whose refrain is :
If me to love you, me to hurt
if me to love you
when me to love you, me to hurt
when me to love you. (I hope my translation is close to the moose)


If this text is discovered in a few centuries by cryptologists, what will be their reaction, bad translation, coded message, misidentified language?

What might have been the manuscript author's demands on his grammar?

Are there any known manuscripts in which the grammar is not respected at all?

Hi, Ruby,

You showed an example of a poem with a few verbs in the infinitive form. To you, the grammar does not make sense. I'd like to show you an example of my poem, which I had written long before I ever heard of Voynich. You will note all those 'ti' suffixes, which are Slovenian suffixes for the verbs in the infinitive form. This is comparable to VM  'dy' endings, since T was often spelled as D, and Y was later changed in some words to Y, and some to I.
Slovenian language has a very flexible word order, so with a bit of 'poetic freedom' I composed almost entire poem  with just verbs in infinitive form. The poem in Slovenian was published. It is perfectly understandable. 
I purposely translated it in English in the same word order as it is in Slovenian, to show you how different and meaningless could sound in a foreign language.
I do not know why the author of the song you mentioned used the infinitive. I didn't even know why I did it, but later on I realized it reflects infinity.