The Voynich Manuscript - The Book That Cannot Be Read

[Lilyth Von Gore]

I'm seeing a lot of repetitve words in that manuscript. Interesting.

Originally Posted by vecta3

ughhh those titles that clam everything to pull you in...partial means very limited...about 14 characters in all. one could guess some words from the plants, not much of a discovery really

I don't understand what you mean by "those titles that claim everything to pull you in." I don't see a claim here that they have deciphered all of it. Yes, the title could have been better written (as is the case for 99% of the media ever since the invention of writing.) If you read beyond the title, I hope you learned just how important this discovery is.

This partial claim, even if "only" fourteen characters is far more than anyone else has managed. It's the first step, and I found it quite amazing they were able to identify full words. They can make huge inroads into the deciphering by that little bit alone. I don't know how many unique characters exist in this manuscript, but if it's at all close to the Greek alphabet, that represents over half of the total (24 letters in the Greek alphabet.)

Admittedly, I have not watched the video included in the link (just haven't taken the time for it.) However, I remain convinced that this is indeed a major discovery, and I'll be checking to see what other progress they make (and publish)

[Arcturus]

if i was a bit quick to conclusion then please excuse. i did watch the vid but it did not hold my attention, not its fault. hopefully this'll lead to a full deciphering. the title was misleading

[Rawnrr]

It is possible that it is a copy made of a copy made of a copy (etc etc) of some old Arabic (or something like that) manuscript as copied by medieval scribes who did not understand the language and just simply tried to imitate the letters.
Every generation of copies multiplying the errors of the previous ones until you have nothing recognizable anymore.

Well, after reading this blog post (that is a point by point rebuttal of Nick Pelling's initial criticism) I don't get the impression that it's simply a multitude of copied texts over the years.

While I don't understand all of the linguistic terminology, what Prof. Bax has proposed so far seems the most plausible in deciphering a script in a real language. Any professor (i.e., Ph.D. scholar) in linguistics I would then expect to be educated enough to determine whether something is gibberish or not. He's made actual translations of a few of the words in the manuscript. You can't translate gibberish ;)

The Voynich manuscript is pretty interesting. I'm jealous of people that dig this sort of thing up. I'm going to hand write and bind a book and bury it in big metal box for people in a hundred years to dig up and pull their hair out over. I'll be giggling in my grave.

That's the spirit TL!

You might have a look at the Codex Seraphinianus. I'd link it here, but some of the drawings are explicit, even if it's meant to be a kind of alien-art biology book (it's a work of art, not a mysterious artifact.)

Originally Posted by Animus27

I doubt anyone would take such "translations" seriously, since one could make them up, and without a way of philologically figuring out what it says - the channeled translations can't be verified.

Seemed to have worked out just fine for Joseph Smith...