JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 12:24 PM
JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 12:35 PM
oshfdk > Yesterday, 12:47 PM
(Yesterday, 12:24 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Something like this can ruin many serious attempts of decryption. Imagine if sequences were simply repeated in many lines, in a slightly different form. If you don't know that, it ruins a lot of meaningful attempts... that's what this thread is about.
Rafal > Yesterday, 12:51 PM
JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 01:16 PM
Rafal > Yesterday, 01:28 PM
JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 01:28 PM
ReneZ > 9 hours ago
(Yesterday, 12:24 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I made a mistake there. I only mentioned the code to explain how I came across it, not to say, “Hey, I have a code.”
Mark Knowles > 9 hours ago
(Yesterday, 01:28 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One option is "autocitation theory" which says that Voynich text is nonsense and the scribe was creating new words by altering already written ones.Or as I would say partial-autocitation which says that some of the Voynich text is nonsense filler words and in the case of those filler words sometimes the scribe created new filler words by altering already written filler and real words. Also, I think some of the most common filler words don't need to be viewed as autocitation, but rather words picked from the standard stock of filler words that the author used. I would say having studied the most distinctive words in detail that autocitation cannot and does not explain them, so such a theory cannot explain all words in the Voynich manuscript. To reiterate it seems to me that Voynich words are words, but can be divided into two types real and filler words where the majority are filler words. I have guessed that very roughly about 80% of words are filler words and about 20% of words are real words.
But it isn't universally accepted.
JoJo_Jost > 3 hours ago
(9 hours ago)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point is that, if your idea arose from an invalid translation, then the idea has no basis.
Certainly, it is possible that the text we have is a copy of a draft, or another original.
Certainly, it is also possible that errors were made during this copying.
(Both things are known to have happened in other manuscripts.)
However, the evidence for it, or the places where it may have happened is not valid (if the translation is invalid).
For me, it is not even certain that the 'words' in the MS represent words.
If so, I'll be sure to post it here. But I'm less and less convinced 