12-11-2016, 11:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-11-2016, 11:51 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: problem with the links not displaying correctly
)
In the earlier part of the thread, the conversation seemed to be going along the lines of ... the text works as if it uses concept-signs (and then modifers), just as hieroglyphics and Chinese characters do..
and the order of elements is not "oak-root" but "root-oak" ... so far so good.
What I don't understand is how the thread, looking as if the next logical step would be to concur pretty much with Stolfi's view that ..
.. suddenly the thread veered back to the "all European" idea, as if we have found that the text looks like a bird, flies like a bird and chirps like a bird.. but then said "so it's a fish that acts like a bird".
Why not just suppose we are dealing with a mixture of characters and added modifiers? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't see why it should be necessary to imagine an Indo-European language acting like a non-European language, when the simpler answer is.. what Stolfi said.
and the order of elements is not "oak-root" but "root-oak" ... so far so good.
What I don't understand is how the thread, looking as if the next logical step would be to concur pretty much with Stolfi's view that ..
Quote:Voynichese may not be Chinese, of course... [but] If Voynichese is an unencrypted natural language (which, IMHO, is still the most likely alternative), then it is almost certainly not an Indo-European one.
(1998).
.. suddenly the thread veered back to the "all European" idea, as if we have found that the text looks like a bird, flies like a bird and chirps like a bird.. but then said "so it's a fish that acts like a bird".
Why not just suppose we are dealing with a mixture of characters and added modifiers? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't see why it should be necessary to imagine an Indo-European language acting like a non-European language, when the simpler answer is.. what Stolfi said.