- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Cliffs of Moher
- The Cliffs of Moher
-
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
Doireannjane > Yesterday, 12:53 PM
So this is a great example of what also happened in the last thread. So little listening/reading and respect is happening on your end collectively. I had one request with this thread and you all just couldn’t really handle it I guess. Now we have a second convoluted thread starting. I don’t understand how Renez has 9 reputation points, jumping in with a comment like that.
Stolfi, my phonetic breakdown can be found on my YouTube, TikTok lives, 1:1 lessons and Substack etc.
Thank you Jojo for derailing things, as I suspected would happen. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
Koen G > Yesterday, 01:28 PM
I see a civil discussion.
In the last couple of posts, your arguments included a type of fabric invented and named in the 18th century and a castle that gained its current appearance in the 19th century. What kind of reaction do you expect? -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
igajkgko > Yesterday, 01:42 PM
The petersham issue just adds on to the issue in the first thread where you managed to translate a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (still unacknowledged as far as I can see, sorry if I missed anything).
If you can translate forged sentences, your translation "works" for anything and manages to "make sense" out of gibberish. It's thus independent of any original meaning and "works" no-matter what language the voynich is actually encoding (if any), or how it's encoded.
I can see the argument for considering this off-topic given the first post, but there will be many elephants with us in this roomthread if the discussion is expected to take place as-if the translation is correct.. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
joben > Yesterday, 02:06 PM
@Doireannjane:
What exactly is wrong with ReneZ's statement? All I can see is that he said the translated sentence looks like "word salad" and that it is similar to previous translation attemps made by thousands of other people in hundreds of different languages and dialects. And I agree with him. It does look like word salad. There is no reason why we should have to walk on egg shells when evaluating a theory.
(Yesterday, 01:42 PM)igajkgko Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you can translate forged sentences, your translation "works" for anything and manages to "make sense" out of gibberish. It's thus independent of any original meaning and "works" no-matter what language the voynich is actually encoding (if any), or how it's encoded.
This is such an important point that I believe it needs to be adressed for your theory to have any credibility. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 02:20 PM
-
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
rikforto > Yesterday, 02:29 PM
(Yesterday, 01:42 PM)igajkgko Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can see the argument for considering this off-topic given the first post, but there will be many elephants with us in this roomthread if the discussion is expected to take place as-if the translation is correct..
I will also say that the OP herself needs to decide if her translations are germane premises or evidence on this thread as offered in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or if she would like to strictly pursue other lines of inquiry. I am prepared to respect the latter, and despite my reservations when she started the thread the discussion up to that point was exploring a new set of problems raised by the Irish theory. But I don't think it's particularly tenable for her to both exclude and offer the translation as she sees fit. If there is a case for knapweed besides the translation and that is the point of the thread, then OP more than anyone needs to stick to the terms she set. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
Doireannjane > Yesterday, 02:37 PM
(Yesterday, 01:28 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see a civil discussion.
In the last couple of posts, your arguments included a type of fabric invented and named in the 18th century and a castle that gained its current appearance in the 19th century. What kind of reaction do you expect?
To Koen. I would say that’s poor Moderation on your end and based in bias. What did I expect? Respect, that’s it, nothing more. I requested linguistics take a back seat and the focus be geographical. Period.
You’re displaying the lack of reading/listening/respect here too.
Firstly, the castle was not an argument at all. I literally say peripheral item worthy of notice. It is a recreation/redevelopment of what it once looked like and it is distinct from other castles. That’s it.
Secondly, the word petersham is not up for debate in the thread, as per the premise of this thread. Which you’re actively disrespecting. The word in Irish literallly translates to “rough woolen cloth” and centuries LATER came to mean petersham. I include this word because it evolved with a religious specification. Which is important to include. This timeline is entirely mapped out in my publication and on my GitHub. I keep all of my textual evidence completely minimal in all of these posts so the focus stays where it should, because linguistics is not the focus of this thread. Super simple request.
I genuinely feel like I’m interacting with professional rage baiters that have little interest in discovery regarding this text. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
Koen G > Yesterday, 03:10 PM
That's just not the kind of request I can moderate for you. You yourself bring up your translations in this thread.
It's like taking blue and yellow paint, mixing them to a green and asking people to only look at the yellow paint.
Again, what are people supposed to interact with here? Your plant identifications? Well, those are interwoven with your linguistic theory, so this is off-limits.
The castle? Someone told you that it's a modern fancy, and you just doubled down.
The fact that some kind of oak is the national tree, and the word "oak" also occurs in "oak gall"? Which is used to make the most common ink of the Middle Ages?
Your theory is inseparable from the linguistic part of it, and even if we make an effort to separate them for you, then the remaining arguments are still poor. I understand that people don't know how to respond in a way you find reasonable. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
tavie > Yesterday, 03:12 PM
Hi Doireann,
I understand you asked people to presuppose for the sake of discussion that your translations were accepted. But that isn't working, and it was likely doomed from the start. Consider it from the point of view of the other posters.
Imagine someone comes to you telling you the manuscript is in Swedish. They share their translations with you, but you can't see that they are any different from the two hundred wrong solutions already out there, and to cap it off they use their system to translate a sentence of Voynichese and produce output similar to their earlier translations...except the Voynichese turns out to have been fake. That person then wants you to presuppose the earlier translations have been accepted as accurate in order to participate in a discussion about a Swedish connection to the manuscript...that includes their translations.
It's not easy for anyone to do, and I don't think it's a helpful presupposition to try to make either. You can't ask people to discuss conclusions without assessing the premises that lead to these. Doing so makes the whole discussion pretty meaningless.
So I'd suggest that you keep the thread focused on the question of an Irish connection without using your translations as any type of evidence and without asking people to make any assumptions.
If instead you decide to keep using your translations as evidence, people are going to question their validity as evidence, and we'll end up in a continuation of your previous thread, where we are all just going round in circles. -
RE: The Cliffs of Moher
Doireannjane > 11 hours ago
Just because something is told to me does not make it the truth. There is no evidence that it’s a “modern fancy”. The historical record says redevelopment. It’s unknown. You don’t know. I don’t know.
As for mention of the Oak. Possibly down the line they could figure out where the ink came from based on area/type of oak. That’s all i was suggesting there. Not really that bizarre to mention.
I wanted for this thread to open up a conversation and to put this area on the radar since my translation, and Irish in general, is so quickly dismissed as a possibility. I wanted to discuss the Voynich in terms of environment, botany, climate as it coincides with the Burren. I strongly believe it should be considered a serious geographic possibility. The linguistic side, I’m already working on this outside of the forum, for a lot of these reasons coming up now again. This was just for me to provide more supporting, non-linguistic evidence.
This is not a welcoming forum. I’m an educator, so I just imagine a teen or someone younger looking at a forum like this, just being totally dissuaded from ever believing they could figure something like this out or even pursue linguistics as a study.
