[split] Torsten's criticism of Bowern & Lindemann

[Torsten]

I do not have a full system of parsing worked out. I just think it is not unreasonable to point out that the correct parsing of Voynichese remains a critical unanswered question, and we should not just assume that EVA (or any other such system) equals Voynichese. I would personally not take word length into account as a factor, since we simply don't know it.

(An increase in the number of characters need not be problematic. How many different characters are there in medieval manuscripts? I wouldn't like to count them.)

Does this mean you are only considering evidence that supports your hypotheses about the Voynich? 

By the way, do you agree with Lisas Fagin Davis views on the Voynich? If yes, do you also agree with Lisa that Ahmet Ardıç Turkish attempt is interesting (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)? Do you agree with her statement about the identity of the five scribes (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) or with her statement that it is possible to distinguish different scribal hands? Do you agree with her when she says "In the 1970s, Captain Prescott Currier discerned only two different patterns of letter frequency and glyph combinations on different sets of leaves." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) or do you believe Prescott Currier stating "This gives us a total of two languages and six to eight scribes" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)? And if you didn't agree with Lisas views shouldn't it be possible to discuss all hypotheses about the Voynich manuscript critically?