-JKP- > 26-05-2017, 05:22 PM
davidjackson > 26-05-2017, 05:57 PM
ReneZ > 26-05-2017, 07:25 PM
Koen G > 26-05-2017, 07:30 PM
-JKP- > 26-05-2017, 08:04 PM
(26-05-2017, 07:30 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's also clear that Stephen was under certain constraints, he wasn't allowed to refer to specific research etc. On the other hand it's true that there seems to be some self-promotion involved, with the Tauron and such. But that's good for the general public.
The problem with the "natural language" question is that there are so many possibilities. Maybe we can statistically prove that it's not full sentences in any normal language. But could it be lists of nouns/names/adjectives? Directions, measurements, instructions...? In other words, might it be natural language in an unexpected text type?
There's another possibility that's been wandering through my mind lately, but it's hard to explain and it may be a dumb idea. I'll make a new thread
Koen G > 26-05-2017, 08:14 PM
-JKP- > 26-05-2017, 08:18 PM
Torsten > 27-05-2017, 11:01 AM
(26-05-2017, 08:14 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if it's not natural language, then what is it? I just don't think that something like "auto-copying" is a realistic option, if only because of the historical context. Something "real", some kind of information, must have been at the basis of this text.
Emma May Smith > 27-05-2017, 06:38 PM
(26-05-2017, 05:22 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is the statement:
"Cryptologists say the writing has all the characteristics of a real language."
Is that really true? Is that the general consensus among cryptologists? Is there a general consensus among cryptologists?
Torsten > 29-05-2017, 09:28 PM
(27-05-2017, 06:38 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-05-2017, 05:22 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is the statement:
"Cryptologists say the writing has all the characteristics of a real language."
Is that really true? Is that the general consensus among cryptologists? Is there a general consensus among cryptologists?
I'm very keen on the possibility that the Voynich text is ultimately a natural language or something very similar, and I wouldn't quite agree with this statement (not that I'm a cryptologist either).