06-06-2025, 02:54 PM
(06-06-2025, 11:06 AM)dashstofsk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To understand the purpose of this manuscript we need instead to look at what is logical, possible, probable, plausible. It is my belief that people are thinking too hard about the manuscript. A simple solution is probably more likely. Something more in keeping with other 'secret' manuscripts of the period. A new alphabet for an existing language - not possible. An alphabet for an unknown language - improbable. Random gibberish - improbable, illogical. Encyphered text and to necessarily have to do it for all the ~36000 words - possible, not simple, not plausible. An artificial construction fraudulently created to sell on the market for a fortune in florins - plausible and simple.
(06-06-2025, 11:06 AM)dashstofsk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]A new alphabet for an existing language - not possible.[..]
Sorry, this one is not good. There were many languages, also in Europe, which existed before and without having an own alphabet:
among the kartvelian languages is only Georgian coming with own alphabet, Laz, Mingrelian and Svan hat to borrow and adapt it.
Old Russian and Ruthenian developed own sets of different kyrillic, which was more or less adapted by other Slavic languages later.
Croatian turned to Latin, but kept Glagolithic for clerical use.
Several turkic-based languages started with Arabic language, tried it with kyrillic for a while and changed to turks' Latin adaption. This is still happening to languages who are hundreds of years old but never developed an own alphabet.
All those changes are a "new alphabet" -- Voynichese may have been a unique (and failed) try to roll out some new alphabet to a smaller language as well.
Reminding of Kyrillic (which has many leans from Greek) this all looks not so new at all.
So, keeping it plausible and simple, the variant "new alphabet for an existing language" can be as probable as the "fraud"...