Pretty much. Why anyone would believe an extraordinary claim like that is beyond me. I mean, I guess it sells more papers or gets more views if the article is “VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT DECIPHERED!!!” as opposed to “LATEST VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT CLAIM.” But, come the fuck on, at this point (actually, well before this point), nobody should believe any initial claim that the manuscript has been deciphered, much less by some guy with a fortnight of free time on his hands.
I mean, hey, who knows? But I see no reason to get excited every time the manuscript has a new translation the instant it’s made public until there’s an adequate period of time to digest and critique the information, as every single other time, it’s come out to be total BS.
I’m boxing way outside my weight here but wouldn’t there have to be a proto-romance language?
How so, “legit”?:dubious: A quick scan shows absolutely nothing about methodology, nor any description of how the “translations” were confirmed.
I don’t know how Romance Languages conducts its peer-review, but I would point out that “peer-reviewed” doesn’t mean “correct.”
The “proto-Romance” language was Latin. AFAIK, the various Romance languages evolved separately in different regions, based on different Latin dialects and different local influences. There wasn’t a “proto-Romance” language that extended across Europe that would have included all of the forms found in later descendant languages.
i know what it said… it was the directions on how to build a time tunner for the new dinosaur train …:p:D
There should be a rule that before you can claim to have broken the code you must provide some significant number–say, 20–fully translated, coherent pages from the manuscript.
As far as a skeptical attitude, that one is barely in the ballpark. It takes more of a “wait & see” POV, which is the right way to approach anything new.
Paper is cheap and widely available. Vellum, historically, has been neither cheap nor widely available.
What does that have to do with what Derleth wrote?:dubious: The point is the effort involved in making such a work, not its expense. The person who wrote it obviously had some learning and esoteric knowledge, and could have had access to materials like vellum.
It may be that Cheshire is misusing the term, but yes, proto-Romance is a thing. E.g.: Proto-Romance | language | Britannica.
It refers to a theoretical version of vulgar Latin.
All of these claims go the same way.
Researcher: I’ve done it! I’ve figured out the Voynich Manuscript!
Everyone else: Cool, what does it say?
Researcher: Um, I haven’t figured that out yet.
Ars technica article: No, someone hasn’t cracked the code of the mysterious Voynich manuscript [Updated] | Ars Technica
(basically saying 'nope")
Brian
Already linked to in post #41.
No matter how many frauds have claimed to have translated the manuscript, it is an error to automatically roll one’s eyes and conclude every claim is a fraud. Ancient languages were untranslated until they were. Coded messages were untranslated until they were. Unthinkingly dismissing every claim as a fraud is intellectual laziness. If you are too lazy or too busy to seriously evaluate every claim, it is better to just ignore the claims.
I’m skeptical too, but it seems like this approach to translating the document is worth study & testing.
Perhaps put a little money into it and evaluate the results.
It shouldn’t take long to see if this theory works.
My objection is the breathless reporting that the code has finally been solved. By all means, explore the extraordinary claim and don’t dismiss it out of hand, but when every six months there’s yet another media story that the Voynich Manuscript has been deciphered, a healthy degree of skepticism is warranted.