Sure. But it’s a *Peer reviewed *fish wrapper, unlike your buddy Pelling and the Fortean Times, eh?
Look, Pelling is a pseudoscience nut who wrote his own hokum book on decoding the manuscript. So of course he is gonna attack any real attempt at doing so.
Do you ever tire of beclowning yourself?
And speaking of–what I found earlier is The Journal of Romance Studies, not the journal Romance Studies.
In this case, I think it means the editor of the journal could be fired.
I know more than a little about languages. But the main thing is that, as a scientist, I am qualified to speak on the scientific method. Now, the humanities may have different standards than the hard sciences, but they should still follow some basic rules of logic and evidence. Even the most cursory reading of this article shows, as I have described, his methodology is totally bogus. The reasoning is circular, he makes many statements for which there is no evidence and for which he provides no citations, and there is no verification. It completely boggles my mind that any serious journal in any field would publish something like this.
You of all people should realize that having a “Dr.” in front of your name doesn’t automatically give someone credibility. 
And peer review doesn’t mean you can’t apply critical thinking to an article but simply have to accept it.
Once again, I’m going to ask you to provide some “translations” from the article that you think make perfect sense. Then we can discuss the assumptions and leaps of logic behind it.
There is a range of ornithological journals, ranging from major widely respected journals to small regional ones. The level of peer review and the importance of the articles likewise varies.
I’ve been a reviewer for ornithological and other scientific journals. I’ve been sent some crappy and amateurish articles that I’ve dinged and recommended not be published. But I’ve never been sent one as bad as this one. In any scientific journal I know of, an article like this would have been consigned by the editor to the circular file without ever sending it out for review.
You don’t have to be a primatologist to see the flaws in an article about Bigfoot, or an astronomer to debunk one on UFOs, or a geologist to debunk one on Atlantis. All you need is the ability to detect bullshit when you see it. And this article is bullshit from beginning to end.
It is* you *that used as a refutation a cite from some nutjob who wrote a pseudoscientific book on the manuscript that was hailed by the fucking *Fortean times. *
Vellum was invented precisely because paper was neither cheap nor widely available. It was created as a response to a paper embargo.
Sure. No doubt. But ** Darren Garrison**'s big refutation is by a guy who wrote a nutjob pseudoscientific competing book on the manuscript that was hailed by the fucking Fortean times. So, altho yes, PhD doesnt automatically= Right, it certainly is more credible than being hailed by the Fortean Times. You have said you consider the manuscript untranslatable, thus how on earth did the computer game writer Pelling manage it? Why are you considering his bogus pseudoscientific refutation Ok, while getting down on Cheshire, who at least is a scientist?
"Figure 30 shows the word ‘palina’ which is a rod for measuring the depth of water, sometimes called a stadia rod or ruler…Figure 31 shows an illustration of a bearded monk in his washtub, from the monastery where the manuscript was created. The words read: opat a sa (it is abbot). His is one of very few male faces seen in the manuscript. The word opát survives to mean abbot in Polish, Czech and Slovak, demonstrating that proto-Romance reached as far as Eastern Europe. In Western Europe other variants survive: abat (Catalan), abad (Spanish), abbé (French), whilst the Latin is ‘abbas’. This also demonstrates the phonetic overlap between the sounds ‘p’ and ‘b’ in the manuscript alphabet…Figure 33 shows two women dealing with five children in a bath. The words describe different temperaments: tozosr (buzzing: too noisy), orla la (on the edge: losing patience), tolora (silly/foolish), noror (cloudy: dull/sad), or aus (golden bird: well behaved), oleios (oiled: slippery). These words survive in Catalan [tozos], Portuguese [orla], Portuguese [tolos], Romanian [noros], Catalan [or aus] and Portuguese [oleio]. The words orla la describe the mood of the woman on the left and may well be the root of the French phrase ‘oh là là’, which has a very similar sentiment…Figure 35 shows Folio 17 left: Mediterranean Sea holy (Eryngium bourgatii). The first line of the accompanying text reads: ‘pésaut om eos é péor é péia t’ (sorry/apologies people, they have the worst/potent sting). Sea holly has very prickly defences against being eaten by herbivores. The illustration shows the plant both in flower and in seed, where the heads are bluish and reddish-brown respectively. The text words survive in various Romance languages and Latin: pésaut (Old French) om (Romanian) eos (Latin) é péor é péia (Spanish) t [terminus] (Latin). The plant is native along much of the Mediterranean coastline. Mediterranean Sea holly contains volatile defensive chemicals called germacrenes, which are antimicrobial and insecticidal, so it was a useful antiseptic and repellent when applied to the skin."
Now, yes, Cheshire only translated short phrases, but they make sense to me.
And the Beeb. I’m kind of suprised to see news outlets mentioning the “oops, never mind.”
(Also, at least I wasn’t the only one confused about where the paper was published.)
The Guardian gets a quote from Cheshire. (Paraphrased “Fools! They laugh at me now, but we will see who gets the last laugh!.”)
That’s the problem with peer review. Sometimes it’s better to get someone actually knowledgeable about the subject to review it, instead of your peers.
So this time round the big difference to be inferred is thus that you don’t now harbour any such caveats or doubts about this solution? At least that is well in line with the current remainder of this thread.
Sigh. My favorite YouTube VMer was picking out words, not in Proto-Romance, but in Proto-Romani. He was also starting with picking out the short strings (labels?) associated with illustrations. He concentrated on the astrology section.
I didn’t bookmark him, though, thinking that there can’t be that many VM videos. Hah! I’ll probably never find it again.
Interesting that for a text written in vulgar latin, he’s chosen to assume different glyphs for U and V.
In the comments on this page, two partial solvers showed up just yesterday. Cvetka Kocjancic figured out that it is in Carniolan-Illyrian and is pretty sure who wrote it, and Robert Funicella doesn’t say what language it is in, but he seems to know at least one letter.
If this is translation, we will have to revise the definition. It does not mean “wild speculation without proof”.
Nick Pelling wrote a book on the Voynich Manuscript and has created a website about it (and other ciphers), but I can find no indication anywhere that he claims to have “solved” it. Where are you getting your information?