[split] Torsten's criticism of Bowern & Lindemann

[Koen G]

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

No. My opinion is that we need more work on parsing before meaningful word length research can be done. So I look at all word length research with some reservations. I'm not sure which hypothesis of mine it is I am favoring here. Us not knowing for certain how Voynichese should be parsed is a fact.

Your questions:

• By the way, do you agree with Lisas Fagin Davis views on the Voynich?
  --> some things yes, some things no. 
  
• 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.)? 
  --> initially I was just as excited about the Turkic theory, and I may have written similarly positive things. Now that I have learned more about it, I think it is very bad.
  
• 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?
  --> I find this very hard to research myself, so I have to trust her on this. There are certainly more than one scribes, and I am happy to work with Lisa's scribes until she or someone equally qualified proposes a revision.
  
• 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.)?
  --> Both are correct in a way. Currier's merit is his discovery of different dialects, coinciding with two hands. He did indeed mention the possibility of more scribes, but this seems to have been more of an afterthought.
• And if you didn't agree with Lisas views shouldn't it be possible to discuss all hypotheses about the Voynich manuscript critically?
  --> We have to be critical of everything, but we also have to know when expertise takes precedence. When it comes to the matter of Lisa's scribes, the overwhelming sentiment on the forum seems to be that paleography is such a specialized subject, that we just have to accept her views as the most authoritative statements we have on the matter. Until another paleographer comes along and challenges these views, there are five scribes as far as I am concerned.
  

I would also really encourage you to take Emma's post to heart, because she phrases well how your contributions are perceived. To keep aggressively chasing people with all potentially contradictory or mistaken things they have ever said is very unpleasant and unproductive.