proto57 > 27-05-2022, 03:58 PM
RobGea > 27-05-2022, 06:54 PM
Quote:But any conceivable language and/or script of their time, that they would have been aware of in the 17th century, other than Linear A and B, had by 1912 their origins and meanings understood.
RobGea > 27-05-2022, 07:15 PM
pfeaster > 27-05-2022, 10:00 PM
(27-05-2022, 06:54 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also your argument is not very clear to me.
davidjackson > 28-05-2022, 06:53 AM
bi3mw > 28-05-2022, 09:15 AM
(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In some ways they would over compensate - Kirchner, and I'm sure many of his contemporaries, would happily claim knowledge that they didn't actually possess.
Quote:"He who works only on one thing seldom discovers anything new."
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ( 1646 - 1716 ) -
nablator > 28-05-2022, 11:23 AM
(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical
proto57 > 28-05-2022, 02:46 PM
(28-05-2022, 11:23 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical
Although the argument may seem logical, it is entirely fallacious. It is not even a rational argument.
The flaw (false dichotomy) is to assume that only a fake would use an alphabet that never gets identified within a corpus of existing texts (whose probability of getting discovered increases with the passage of time) despite the well known fact that all writings using a made-up alphabet that is never reused in other documents (as is often the case with ciphers) also share this property.
proto57 > 28-05-2022, 02:55 PM
(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very interesting Rich.
I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical, these scholars will still have had an understanding of many of these scripts, even if they couldn't personally read them.
Ie the galgolthic comment, it was perfectly recognizable and the implication was that they could quickly find someone who read it.
In some ways they would over compensate - Kirchner, and I'm sure many of his contemporaries, would happily claim knowledge that they didn't actually possess.
They were over confident. So show them a strange looking manuscript and they'd wave a hand and say ah! Western coptic in the third province or whatever, without really having a clue.
So for them to confess they were baffled would be a major confession.
proto57 > 28-05-2022, 02:59 PM
(27-05-2022, 10:00 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of all the scripts that Kircher, Baresch, and their contemporaries would (1) have had access to and (2) considered unknown or unintelligible, most had become known and intelligible by Wilfrid Voynich's time. On that basis, any script characterized in their seventeenth-century correspondence as unknown or unintelligible has a high probability of corresponding to some script that was known and intelligible in the 1910s -- and a low probability of corresponding to one that still wasn't.
Is that a fair summary?