15-11-2025, 06:00 PM
Doireann, this last post is a great example of what others (and myself) have found problematic about your methods. You wrote "I've used whitish in other sentences and this sentence itself does not position an adjective there where it is, so I break up the word." You are making a choice about how to interpret the word based on what you think it should mean. That is by definition "cherry-picking". it is not reproduceable by anyone other than yourself, making it impossible for anyone else to repeat your work and come to the same conclusions. No one else would look at that sentence and decide to "break up the word." Instead of posting examples of sentences you've interpreted, you need to go back to first principles and explain, simply and concisely, your association of sounds to symbols and your justification for those associations, in ways other than trial and error or selective confirmation bias.
Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean.
Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again.
Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.
Like anyone else, you need to ensure that your work is consistent with what we already already know - linguistically, historically, and codicologically - about the manuscript. For example, how do you explain the differences between Language A and Language B, especially the -dy suffix you interpret as (I think?) -dhin? It's shockingly common in Language B and shockingly rare in Language A. That's just one example...read up on the differences between A and B and you'll see what I mean.
Like anyone else, you need to do the reading, and you need to be willing to revise or even let go of your ideas - regardless of how much time and effort you have put in - if it becomes clear to you that you are on the wrong track. We have all run into brick walls in our work, and there is no shame in changing your mind and taking a different direction, as frustrating as it might be. It's how good, responsible scholarship works. You follow the evidence, and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you start again.
Like anyone else who posts here, you are being pushed to explain yourself more clearly precisely because we all want to see this manuscript interpreted. That's why we're here.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)