22-06-2025, 08:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-06-2025, 08:25 PM by Mark Knowles.)
Maybe, I should explain why this hypothesis appeals to me.
(1) It helps to explain the very repetitive nature of Voynichese.
(2) It accounts for the presence of Voynichese words that are not repetitive in nature and have their own structure.
(3) Unlike, the "hoax"/gibberish theory, which implies all the text in the Voynich manuscript is meaningless and therefore the manuscript as a whole must be meaningless, this hypothesis implies the manuscript is perfectly meaningful and so not a product of hoax or psychosis.
Whilst, I haven't studied Trithemius's Steganographia I believe it provides another contemporary example of the use of filler text.
But for this theory to work well one probably needs to devise a good way of split the text in null/filler and real text. And I am not sure how to best do that.
I am still of the mindset that the most distinctive and abnormal words are the ones we should pay most attention to, whereas historically in Voynich research they often tend to be ignored.
(1) It helps to explain the very repetitive nature of Voynichese.
(2) It accounts for the presence of Voynichese words that are not repetitive in nature and have their own structure.
(3) Unlike, the "hoax"/gibberish theory, which implies all the text in the Voynich manuscript is meaningless and therefore the manuscript as a whole must be meaningless, this hypothesis implies the manuscript is perfectly meaningful and so not a product of hoax or psychosis.
Whilst, I haven't studied Trithemius's Steganographia I believe it provides another contemporary example of the use of filler text.
But for this theory to work well one probably needs to devise a good way of split the text in null/filler and real text. And I am not sure how to best do that.
I am still of the mindset that the most distinctive and abnormal words are the ones we should pay most attention to, whereas historically in Voynich research they often tend to be ignored.