05-08-2025, 07:35 AM
Yes, I fully agree with your observations oshfdk and magnesium! A nomenclator is wonderfully simple and transparent and it’s easy to see what it does well or poorly: its relationship with the plain text is straightforward. That’s what makes it a valuable thought experiment in my eyes. In some way, the idea fits well with Bowern and Lindemann’s conclusions about the Linguistics of the Voynich Manuscript:
I also like how Rene could replicate quasi-reduplication with his clever mod2 system. Anyway, I don’t feel I understand enough of Voynichese to have strong convictions or theories of my own, so I don’t think I can contribute anything at the moment.
Quote:Our work argues that the character level metrics show Voynich to be unusual, while the word and line level metrics show it to be regular natural language and within the range of a number of plausible languages. The higher structure of the manuscript itself is completely consistent with natural language and is very unlikely to be manufactured. This therefore implies that the script is not structure-preserving in that the graphemes are not one to one, but they do encode words in a regular orthography.
I also like how Rene could replicate quasi-reduplication with his clever mod2 system. Anyway, I don’t feel I understand enough of Voynichese to have strong convictions or theories of my own, so I don’t think I can contribute anything at the moment.