23-01-2016, 04:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 23-01-2016, 04:49 AM by don of tallahassee.)
Dear JKP,
I don't think it is a natural language.
If it is a formulaic cipher of a natural language and it acts as shown in the Voynich Lite deconstruction list of words, then it is a code system, with syllables or the like being represented by the codes.
The reason I formulated the Voynich Lite proposed solution for the 505 most commonly used Voynich words was only to show that structure is indeed present in a heretofore mostly unrecognized form in the Voynich words. I have laid out the general form of the structure and the sequence in how those words must be deconstructed and given most of the codes with which to work.
All I am trying to do with Voynich Lite is to get people to recognize that the structure and sequence and codes do exist and work as they are said to work by me. I have given the entire list and deconstructed each as proof that my proposed solution methods can give organization to how to deconstruct the words.
I am willing to discuss meaning with those of you reading ahead, but this part is just supposed to be about Voynich Lite and the reasons why people won't accept it.
Can anyone else do anything similar with a large group of VMS words? Can anyone find evidence that I've fudged anything? Is the proposed solution too early for the Fifteenth Century? 503 out of 505 is pretty convincing to me. Why do others resist...because they don't like the idea? Is it too simple a scheme to have fooled people for this long? Is it too easy?
When I get a bit more public acceptance that my ideas and sequence work, then I would like to go on to the proposed meanings.
For right now, I'd really like to concentrate on this part of my campaign for acceptance. It doesn't have anything to do with meanings, only the glyphs and how they are formed into words. That makes it harder to argue against - it isn't opinions and/or guesses, just evidentiary facts and proof...
I think.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee.
Dear JKP,
I just noticed the line in your email that reads, 'It's also possible that the VMS author made up letters to represent sounds that didn't exist in the local language where the manuscript was created.'
Do you mean like some of those shown in Table VII - The sounds of the VMS Glyphs - the ones identified so far, at my fumblydiddles.com site?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
I don't think it is a natural language.
If it is a formulaic cipher of a natural language and it acts as shown in the Voynich Lite deconstruction list of words, then it is a code system, with syllables or the like being represented by the codes.
The reason I formulated the Voynich Lite proposed solution for the 505 most commonly used Voynich words was only to show that structure is indeed present in a heretofore mostly unrecognized form in the Voynich words. I have laid out the general form of the structure and the sequence in how those words must be deconstructed and given most of the codes with which to work.
All I am trying to do with Voynich Lite is to get people to recognize that the structure and sequence and codes do exist and work as they are said to work by me. I have given the entire list and deconstructed each as proof that my proposed solution methods can give organization to how to deconstruct the words.
I am willing to discuss meaning with those of you reading ahead, but this part is just supposed to be about Voynich Lite and the reasons why people won't accept it.
Can anyone else do anything similar with a large group of VMS words? Can anyone find evidence that I've fudged anything? Is the proposed solution too early for the Fifteenth Century? 503 out of 505 is pretty convincing to me. Why do others resist...because they don't like the idea? Is it too simple a scheme to have fooled people for this long? Is it too easy?
When I get a bit more public acceptance that my ideas and sequence work, then I would like to go on to the proposed meanings.
For right now, I'd really like to concentrate on this part of my campaign for acceptance. It doesn't have anything to do with meanings, only the glyphs and how they are formed into words. That makes it harder to argue against - it isn't opinions and/or guesses, just evidentiary facts and proof...
I think.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee.
Dear JKP,
I just noticed the line in your email that reads, 'It's also possible that the VMS author made up letters to represent sounds that didn't exist in the local language where the manuscript was created.'
Do you mean like some of those shown in Table VII - The sounds of the VMS Glyphs - the ones identified so far, at my fumblydiddles.com site?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee