03-09-2016, 05:44 PM
Diane, I started to read your blog until I reached this paragraph...
"About the Voynich manuscript’s written text, one assumption is near-universal: that if it conceals a plain text, that plain text will conform to “book-standards”: with its language-use, grammar and orthography (spelling) clear, consistent and so on."
I have to disagree. I see no evidence that this is a near-universal assumption. Most people I've seen who carefully studied and commented on the text have remarked that if it is plain-text it does NOT use clear or consistent or familiar grammar, etc., and many have suggested it might be synthetic text specifically BECAUSE it does not follow the usual natural-language patterns.
I'm sorry. I wanted to read the rest but this statement stopped me in my tracks because it says the opposite of the general impression I've gotten from most of those who have been examining the text and goes against my own impression of the VMS text, as well.
"About the Voynich manuscript’s written text, one assumption is near-universal: that if it conceals a plain text, that plain text will conform to “book-standards”: with its language-use, grammar and orthography (spelling) clear, consistent and so on."
I have to disagree. I see no evidence that this is a near-universal assumption. Most people I've seen who carefully studied and commented on the text have remarked that if it is plain-text it does NOT use clear or consistent or familiar grammar, etc., and many have suggested it might be synthetic text specifically BECAUSE it does not follow the usual natural-language patterns.
I'm sorry. I wanted to read the rest but this statement stopped me in my tracks because it says the opposite of the general impression I've gotten from most of those who have been examining the text and goes against my own impression of the VMS text, as well.