22-11-2016, 03:10 AM
Hi Stellar,
Thanks again for the work. It is always interesting to look at your methods and see your analytical process. I'm sorry for the long post but I'm going to tell a short story:
There was a professor named Alice Kober who worked on deciphering Linear B, which was another undeciphered script in an unknown language - just like Voynichese. Professor Kober didn't start by assuming that Linear B was a certain language - she didn't look at the tablets and say, "This must be Latin / Greek / Egyptian / Welsh" etc. Instead, she analyzed the signs and found out many important things about the language: she determined Linear B had an inflected grammar, that the script was a syllabary (not an alphabet), and she found out the sounds of certain signs. She did all of this without assuming (making an "ass" out of "u" and "me" as they say) what language Linear B really was. Linear B ended up being an ancient form of Greek.
In Professor Kober's day, there were many people who started by saying that Linear B was really Latin or Etruscan, and then they created deciphering systems to "prove" their assumptions. These systems were usually very loose: they could indeed produce Latin or Etruscan words, but they could also produce any other language. So, the "decipherment" was really worthless: it didn't really prove that Linear B was more likely to be Latin than Swahili or Hawaiian.
If your method can produce Welsh and only Welsh, then I would say you have deciphered the VMS. But if your method can produce multiple languages equally well, then your method does not prove that the Voynich Manuscript is encoded Welsh any more than Chinese or Russian or whatever language. So, this may be a good test: open up a German online dictionary, and try to see if you can't generate German words from a Voynichese paragraph using the exact method here. I will try this also (not right now though) and we will see if Welsh is the only possible language.
Sorry for the long post - did that make sense?
Thanks again for the work. It is always interesting to look at your methods and see your analytical process. I'm sorry for the long post but I'm going to tell a short story:
There was a professor named Alice Kober who worked on deciphering Linear B, which was another undeciphered script in an unknown language - just like Voynichese. Professor Kober didn't start by assuming that Linear B was a certain language - she didn't look at the tablets and say, "This must be Latin / Greek / Egyptian / Welsh" etc. Instead, she analyzed the signs and found out many important things about the language: she determined Linear B had an inflected grammar, that the script was a syllabary (not an alphabet), and she found out the sounds of certain signs. She did all of this without assuming (making an "ass" out of "u" and "me" as they say) what language Linear B really was. Linear B ended up being an ancient form of Greek.
In Professor Kober's day, there were many people who started by saying that Linear B was really Latin or Etruscan, and then they created deciphering systems to "prove" their assumptions. These systems were usually very loose: they could indeed produce Latin or Etruscan words, but they could also produce any other language. So, the "decipherment" was really worthless: it didn't really prove that Linear B was more likely to be Latin than Swahili or Hawaiian.
If your method can produce Welsh and only Welsh, then I would say you have deciphered the VMS. But if your method can produce multiple languages equally well, then your method does not prove that the Voynich Manuscript is encoded Welsh any more than Chinese or Russian or whatever language. So, this may be a good test: open up a German online dictionary, and try to see if you can't generate German words from a Voynichese paragraph using the exact method here. I will try this also (not right now though) and we will see if Welsh is the only possible language.
Sorry for the long post - did that make sense?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)