Many attempts have been made to use computer analysis to decipher the MS. None have had any success. Here is one of many previous threads on the MS which includes discussion of a previous decipherment that concluded that it was in Hebrew or a related language. Another analysis has concluded that the text has some meaning, that is, it is not just random. However, no one has succeeded in matching it to a known language that results in a translation that makes any sense.
I must recommend the Codex Seraphinianus, which may be a spoof, send-up, or homage to the Voynich Manuscript.
One wonders what scholars 500 years from today would make of this if only one copy survived.
I wasn’t disputing that the “deciphering” of the code is wrong, merely stating that your interpretation of that particular picture is about as good as the “decipherers” interpretation of the botanics. Which it is. And I’ll offer you a trade: you come not-murder these IT folks here who insist in treating their users as if they were babies (ass-wiping included) and I spend a couple of days looking over the Voynich.
Some day in the distant future, scholars will have a field-day with my kid’s home-made “comic books”.
Amazingly, the researcher in question is Turkish himself!
I wonder how long it will be until the manuscript has been conclusively identified as being in every possible language on Earth.
In other news on that site, the Inca structures were built by aliens. Also ads for “Atlantis found” books. Wake up, sheeple!
A single man, working alone over a period of decades, created a richly detailed illustrated novel over 15,000 pages long. The Voynich Manuscript is fewer than 300 pages.
With respect to the link Commasense gave, either it is a monumental breakthrough or a researcher with an overactive imagination. Given enough material, it is possible to match anything with anything, and this appears to be what he has done. Time will tell if this is anything more than matching Nostradamus’ “predictions” to actual events.
It seems like a break through to me. We know so little about the proto-Romance language. I hope funding is secured to properly interpret the entire document. It would become evident if this new approach actually works.
I’m impressed with the words in proto-Romance that are still found today. That’s what you’d expect to find in a precursor to Romance languages.
What is the next logical step?
Can limited funding be found to research and test this approach to interpretation of the manuscript?
How do they get independent verification of the work?
I know this early article is peer reviewed.
The next logical step is to roll your eyes at this hyperbolic bombast and wait until this thread is bumped for the next person who decoded the manuscript. (Given past patterns, it should be only a few months to wait.)
That’s the actual article, and seems legit.
Wouldn’t proto-Romance predate the manuscript by 1000 years or so???
It is the same damn thing as every other “decoding”–someone claims that they are a sooper genius* who has discovered a few words, then says that someone else needs to come along and do the other 99.9 percent of the translating. Same circus, different clown.
- “Although the purpose and meaning of the manuscript had eluded scholars for over a century, it took Research Associate Dr. Gerard Cheshire two weeks, using a combination of lateral thinking and ingenuity, to identify the language and writing system of the famously inscrutable document.”
He actually translated quite a bit, if you read the article.
The author does not seem terribly familiar with the historical development from Latin to the modern Romance languages. He seems to be matching words at random to the modern languages, without any attempt to contextualize the languge of the manuscript itself. On the other hand, the argument about the script seems like a good one.
Yeah, color me skeptical, as well.