16-07-2024, 02:04 PM
I have browsed these two papers.
They are of decent quality, or at least better than many other proposed solutions that we have seen.
Still I believe it doesn't hit the spot.
The author doesn't present her results in any systematic way but she seems to believe that Voynichese isn't any unique cipher but just a collection of medieval ligatures and abbreviations, used in other works as well. So she browses through Capelli collections of ligatures, picks some that are similar to Voynichese words and that's it. If there is some abbreviation for "semen" in Capelli and some similar looking word in Voynich, then it's "semen". Simple, no frequency analysis or other stuff is required.
Unfortunately it's cherry picking. You choose a few words that fit you and leave 90% of other words unexplained. It was done in the past, with no good results.
I'm also not sure also about this "Gestalt Perspective", whatever it is. Actually it's not any common idea, Google returns nothing for that. There was Gestalt psychology dealing with human perception in early 20th century but how it relates to a manuscript written 500 years earlier is a mystery for me.
They are of decent quality, or at least better than many other proposed solutions that we have seen.
Still I believe it doesn't hit the spot.
The author doesn't present her results in any systematic way but she seems to believe that Voynichese isn't any unique cipher but just a collection of medieval ligatures and abbreviations, used in other works as well. So she browses through Capelli collections of ligatures, picks some that are similar to Voynichese words and that's it. If there is some abbreviation for "semen" in Capelli and some similar looking word in Voynich, then it's "semen". Simple, no frequency analysis or other stuff is required.
Unfortunately it's cherry picking. You choose a few words that fit you and leave 90% of other words unexplained. It was done in the past, with no good results.
I'm also not sure also about this "Gestalt Perspective", whatever it is. Actually it's not any common idea, Google returns nothing for that. There was Gestalt psychology dealing with human perception in early 20th century but how it relates to a manuscript written 500 years earlier is a mystery for me.