- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Zefat theory of the VMS-cosmological section
- The Zefat theory of the VMS-cosmological section
-
The Zefat theory of the VMS-cosmological section
bi3mw > 07-06-2021, 04:40 PM
-
RE: The Zefat theory of the VMS-cosmological section
RenegadeHealer > 07-06-2021, 05:21 PM
(07-06-2021, 04:40 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here are two papers about the Decoding of the Voynich Manuscript by Darius Lorek and Sebastian Lorek ( March 31,2021 and June 6,2021).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I haven't quite understood the theory yet, but maybe the concept will be easier for others to grasp.
Not much to see here, I'm afraid. I don't think these chaps have done enough homework to understand why the VMs is almost certainly not a simple substitution cipher applied to a specimen of natural human language.
There's a thread on this website that lays out all the major reasons why this makes sense, despite not being intuitive, which should be required reading for any aspiring theorist claiming a specimen of natural human language, either in the plain or enciphered in a simple, historically precedented way. I wish this was better understood, so that people didn't waste their time and scholarly talents pursuing a dead lead down a well trodden trail. -
RE: The Zefat theory of the VMS-cosmological section
davidjackson > 07-06-2021, 05:59 PM
We'd get on better if they bothered to include references in their paper
We have a long exposition carefully setting up the stage for their theory of acrostics, but with no references to the examples they cite, it could all be misunderstood hooey.
I mean, I've never heard of acrostics being in targums, but I suppose there could be, they are oral poetry after all. It would be nice to follow up on this. By the by.
There is also a lack of clarity about which language is being used. On page 15 we read....
Quote:Other hymns in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the late ancient Jews, were interwoven into readings
of the verses of the Torah. In the times as Aramaic became the everyday language of the
Jews, a meturgeman might have introduced the readings with a composed poem or a lyrical tale
as preface, like this one of the debate Jonathan ben Uzziel had with a heavenly voice, when
Jonathan completed the translation of the Prophets into Aramaic (Targum Jonathan) and desired
to reveal the secrets of the Hagiographa, but was forbidden doing so by the voice.
Elsewhere the terms "old Aramaic" (pp 3), "Aramaic tongue, like Syriac" (pp8), etc are used.
Aramaic was used by the Syrians; the Jews alone used Hebrew, although they also spoke the language of whatever area they were living in, leaving Hebrew for their sacred texts. A similar language, but one that by the time of the VMS supposed creation was far distinct from any contemporary version of Aramaic. That was the whole point of the targums, to recite Hebraic texts into the vernacular, which was often Aramaic.
An example used is the Targum Sheni of Esther. This work cannot be dated; dates argued for range from the 5th to 11th centuries AD. It is written in Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, a mishmash of terminology from different Aramaic dialects.
We shall leave to one side my personal bugbear that Hebrew and Aramaic are written in the opposite direction to Voynichese.
Anyway, I am distracted. But it would be nice to know where they are getting their translations from, especially the pronunciations.
They fail to make any argument as to why the plaintext is Aramaic and not, say, medieval French or Castillian.
Their theory appears to be that Voynich glyphs are phonetic in nature and can be mapped to Aramaic. Seven glyphs have two distinct phonemes, depending upon position. Short vowels are omitted (Short vowels are not present in old Aramaic spelling[sic]) and two glyphs stand for long vowels, although the same two glyphs also stand in for Greek letters Alpha and Omega. When the same consonant appears sequentially, some letters have a special notation.
Once they have their translation, they then further muddy things by trying to extract an acrostic from the Aramaic plainttext.
The text, and the acrostic, are believed to be extracted from the Book of Revelations.
I can't follow how they have translated the extract from the Rosettes page as they haven't linked their translation with the voynichese.
I also fail to understand why the (Christian) Book of Revelations would be encoded by someone writing in the Jewish tradition. Although the authors write (or, should I say, have copied and pasted from Wikipedia):
Quote:The Hebrew and Christian apocalyptic literature embraces a period from the time of the Babylonian exile down to the end
They fail to note that the traditions are quite distinct.
of the Middle Ages.
In summary, it is a plaintext mapping where seven glyphs are pressed into double usage. We have had lots of arguments before about why this cannot be so, and the short amount of text translated in this paper fails to make a convincing counter-argument.
PDF available here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: The Zefat theory of the VMS-cosmological section
Zerrissenheit > 09-06-2021, 06:37 PM
(07-06-2021, 05:21 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not much to see here, I'm afraid. I don't think these chaps have done enough homework to understand why the VMs is almost certainly not a simple substitution cipher applied to a specimen of natural human language.
There's a thread on this website that lays out all the major reasons why this makes sense, despite not being intuitive, which should be required reading for any aspiring theorist claiming a specimen of natural human language, either in the plain or enciphered in a simple, historically precedented way. I wish this was better understood, so that people didn't waste their time and scholarly talents pursuing a dead lead down a well trodden trail.
Could you point me to this thread, or to others of this sort, that could provide possible openings for NLP research that avoid these pitfalls? Thank you.