The article contains several mistakes. The most problematic statement is the following one:
It is unfortunate that incorrect statements about the Voynich manuscript like that by Claire Bowern are spread out. Bowerns statement obviously refers to the well known observation that certain glyph combinations occur more frequently in certain sections. For instance EVA-edy is more common in Currier B than in Currier A. However, this does not imply that words are systematically organized around topics. On the contrary, a word dominating one page may be rare or absent on the next. Furthermore, if a word is common in one section, it always can also be found in other sections. An example of this behavior is the use of the word 'chedy' in the botanical section. If you look solely on the word frequency for the whole Herbal section it seems as if 'chedy' is common there. However, in the Herbal section in Currier A 'chedy' appears only once, whereas it is frequently utilized in Herbal in Currier B. Yet, even though 'chedy' is common on certain pages in Herbal in Currier B, it remains rare or absent on others. Therefore the detailed observations clearly contradict the notion of a relationship between words and topics.
The usage of words in the Voynich text becomes even more strange if you take into account the finding that certain Voynich characters and character combinations tend to be found at either the beginning or the end of a line. Even Bowern concludes that at least the changes within a line "seem typographical rather than linguistic in nature" [Bowern & Lindemann] It strikes me that a linguist like Bowern isn't aware that this level of variation within a single text is unprecedented for natural languages. Thus, Bowerns conclusion that "the higher structure of the manuscript itself is completely consistent with natural language" is evidently incorrect.
There is no doubt that the Voynich text is structured in some way, but simply because the text has some structure does not entail that it is likely that the Voynichese text would "form sentences in consistent ways that impart meaning," or that Voynichese should possess "phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax" as suggested by Bowern.
Quote:As with writing in any familiar language, the separate sections of the Voynich Manuscript show a certain clustering of words according to their topics: There are words in the manuscript that only appear in the botanical section or the pharmaceutical section of the manuscript or so on, Bowern said to Knowable Magazine in 2021, making the text look a lot like meaningful language.
It is unfortunate that incorrect statements about the Voynich manuscript like that by Claire Bowern are spread out. Bowerns statement obviously refers to the well known observation that certain glyph combinations occur more frequently in certain sections. For instance EVA-edy is more common in Currier B than in Currier A. However, this does not imply that words are systematically organized around topics. On the contrary, a word dominating one page may be rare or absent on the next. Furthermore, if a word is common in one section, it always can also be found in other sections. An example of this behavior is the use of the word 'chedy' in the botanical section. If you look solely on the word frequency for the whole Herbal section it seems as if 'chedy' is common there. However, in the Herbal section in Currier A 'chedy' appears only once, whereas it is frequently utilized in Herbal in Currier B. Yet, even though 'chedy' is common on certain pages in Herbal in Currier B, it remains rare or absent on others. Therefore the detailed observations clearly contradict the notion of a relationship between words and topics.
The usage of words in the Voynich text becomes even more strange if you take into account the finding that certain Voynich characters and character combinations tend to be found at either the beginning or the end of a line. Even Bowern concludes that at least the changes within a line "seem typographical rather than linguistic in nature" [Bowern & Lindemann] It strikes me that a linguist like Bowern isn't aware that this level of variation within a single text is unprecedented for natural languages. Thus, Bowerns conclusion that "the higher structure of the manuscript itself is completely consistent with natural language" is evidently incorrect.
There is no doubt that the Voynich text is structured in some way, but simply because the text has some structure does not entail that it is likely that the Voynichese text would "form sentences in consistent ways that impart meaning," or that Voynichese should possess "phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax" as suggested by Bowern.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)