Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[tavie]

 It's entirely written in a natural language.

How does this work with the patterns of Voynichese, which are unlanguage-like?

Many texts are in this situation and they are read as Turkish without resorting to statistical data. Thus, a solution can be reached without using statistical methods. If this were not the case, Sumerian inscriptions would have remained unread. Linguists write that the Sumerian language is not related to any known language. So, what statistical comparison method could linguists who first managed to read this language have used? Therefore, statistical methods you mention will not be verification tools. If so, the fact that the Sumerian language has been read would have to be explained as unverified information.

I'm not certain reading parts of your posts about whether you are sometimes talking about using statistics to achieve the decipherment or sometimes talking about using statistics to validate the decipherment. The latter was how I read Rene's posts.  

• For achieving decipherment, statistical analyses in various forms have been vital for many decipherments.  It's common for Michael Ventris's decipherment to be reduced to speculating if certain words were connected to place names, but this breakthrough was only made possible through the statistical work by himself and others, in particular to identify potential inflection and initial vowels.
  
  
• For validating decipherments, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that statistical analysis is not essential, and you reference Sumerian as evidence, because no statistical comparison could be performed between the properties of a deciphered text and the unknown properties of Sumerian?  Putting aside that you certainly could run tests for linguistic coherence within and between different texts, I don't see your point here.  There was a long history to the decipherment of Sumerian.  I will somewhat over-simplify it by saying a lot of the decipherment was down to various bilingual sources, e.g. the Akkadian dictionaries providing Sumerian equivalents, and multiple different scholars were involved in developing translations.  Sumerian doesn't seem a good comparison point.  
  

Lastly, I may be confused here since it is late, but I didn't think Rene was saying that statistical analysis is vital for validating all decipherments.  He said that for solutions that translate the vast majority of the text [i.e. the Voynich] in a way that largely makes sense, there is "much less need for statistical tools to confirm or deny the result."

The problem that people here are pointing out is that so far your solution - as with all others - does not fall into this category.  In the 40+ pages of the thread over the past few years, you haven't translated the vast majority of the text or even a minority of it.  I think I asked you for sentences ages ago.  We've only seen you pick individual words, feed them into your system, and then often with some alteration connect them to an Old Turkish word.  It's perfectly correct to say that no expert in Old Turkish can validate such a system.  If someone in the forum claims next week that the text is Medieval Maltese and produces isolated words, they may ask an expert in Medieval Maltese for verification.  But the expert could only confirm if the individual isolated words resemble ones in Medieval Maltese.  The expert can confirm neither the system, nor that the text is Medieval Maltese.  If we accepted your Turkish theory on the basis you provided in the thread so far, we would have to ditch it next week and declare we were wrong, and that Medieval Maltese was actually the language.  And then we'd have to ditch that in turn when the next solution comes round.  

If you've recently translated a whole page, that is far from being the vast majority of the text.  But it would be interesting to see it, because it is a significant step further from isolated words that don't show any grammar.  Could you please copy paste your translation here, since the links you've posted look weird to me?