Secrets of the Voynich manuscript.

[jaylemurph]

History is constantly being re-written as new data is uncovered and new methods of analysis are developed. That’s not even a question. That’s a basic truth of the field, and has been since somebody read Herodotus and said, “That doesn’t sound right.”

And we have plenty of scientists around, but I don’t speak for them. I’m an historian, as in one of those people you’re trying to deal with, evidently in as childish a manner as you can. And as a historian, I can tell you you can’t translate something that was never language to begin with. You’ve done exactly what the creator intended, though — to sink an inordinate amount of time into a fool’s errand and to not see the forest for the trees. 

I’d be willing to bet that your “translation” mirrors your own belief system to a statistically improbable extent — you’re not translating, you’re projecting, and nothing you’ve provided here makes a glimpse into the deeper recesses of your mind particularly palatable. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Nikolai21]

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

[toast]

14 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

 I ask you not to comment on my materials from now on. It's insulting to me.

 

1 hour ago, Nikolai21 said:

 I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

Edited April 28, 2019 by toast

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

12 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

This is the distortion of history. The encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1771, should be trusted more. In the manuscript of Voynich there is a description of this state (sheet 86).

Yes, I trust a book written BEFORE WESTERN CIVILISATION REACHED AUSTRALIA. 

[XenoFish]

I wonder if it was created by someone with a mental illness? Not trying to be insulting but having a had a virtual thumb through, there is a lot of imagination put into it. Just a curious thought.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  

 

OK, let us try a different approach.

WHY is the 1771 encyclopedia Britannica the relevant reference book?

[Piney]

5 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

I have a bit of a biology and medical education. Lets hear it! 

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I wonder if it was created by someone with a mental illness? Not trying to be insulting but having a had a virtual thumb through, there is a lot of imagination put into it. Just a curious thought.

That's possible... 

[Swede]

14 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

1) Which is precisely the point. In the 248 years that have elapsed since the publication of your reference, a plethora of new facts have been added to our knowledge base. Documents, archaeological data, genetic data, etc.

In addition, as Jayle has been attempting to inform you, the interpretation of the "new " information is, from the perspective of a historian, subject to enhanced cultural understandings.

Lastly, one suspects that you are relying on that particular outdated reference because it somehow supports your pre-conceived desires for the outcome of your "translation."

Now, back to the point that you have been avoiding. Feel free to provide us with a specific date related to Great Tartary.

And an additional question: By what means can you demonstrate that Greg Kondrak, whose expertise and methodology is distinctly different from your own, is even aware of you or your project?

Edit: Addition.

.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Swede

[jaylemurph]

17 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

No, history can be and is re-written. A good example is the view of the Germanic and Eastern tribes present in Central and Western Europe in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries CE — Vandals, Alans, Goths (Visi- and Ostro-), Huns, et al. 

For centuries, they were regarded as “barbarians” whose actions demolished the Ronan Empire. Through the course of the 20th Century, as sociological and economic analysis was developed a new data on the period was uncovered, this idea was largely abandoned. The fall of the Empire is considered to be a complex event, with several contributing factors. 

No such subtlety is to be found in centuries old encyclopedias. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

No, history can be and is re-written. A good example is the view of the Germanic and Eastern tribes present in Central and Western Europe in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries CE — Vandals, Alans, Goths (Visi- and Ostro-), Huns, et al. 

and the current archaeological discoveries showing that the Huns peacefully interacted with the country folk and just went after Rome and their aristocracy. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

On 4/28/2019 at 6:29 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

OK, let us try a different approach.

WHY is the 1771 encyclopedia Britannica the relevant reference book?

 

 

And crickets....

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

 

And crickets....

Hi Jodie

Let's leave Jiminy out of this, he didn't do anything.

jmccr8

 

[+Pettytalk]

On 4/27/2019 at 2:12 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Or would you prefer your medical doctor to use techniques from the 18th century to cure your ailments?

Excellent analogy. You were, no doubt, wanting to point out leeches and the lancet. One a blood sucker, the other leading to blood loss. There's bad blood here, bleeding on the sand. One lonely bull in the ring and a whole lot of matadors. Poor Nikolai, don't you know that the spectators never cheer for the bull? 

[Jodie.Lynne]

4 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Excellent analogy. You were, no doubt, wanting to point out leeches and the lancet. One a blood sucker, the other leading to blood loss. There's bad blood here, bleeding on the sand. One lonely bull in the ring and a whole lot of matadors. Poor Nikolai, don't you know that the spectators never cheer for the bull? 

I identify you as a leech, drawing the life out of any thread you engage in.

As for 'poor' Nicolai, I'm confident he can answer for himself, without you defending him.

[+Pettytalk]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I identify you as a leech, drawing the life out of any thread you engage in.

As for 'poor' Nicolai, I'm confident he can answer for himself, without you defending him.

Oh Dear! Apparently you did not get it. Lend me your brain, I did not come on this thread to praise Caesar, but to bury him. You all have killed him already, what is there to defend? Or rather, killed his bull.

God Gives and God Takes Away

[pallidin]

It came to my understanding today that the Voynich manuscript has been tentatively determined to be an obscure midieval "short-hand" medical writing specific to dealing with the gynecological issues of women; with herbs, bathing and astrological charts to guide remediation of ailments.

It was meant to be read by a doctor, not the populace.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Excellent analogy. You were, no doubt, wanting to point out leeches and the lancet. One a blood sucker, the other leading to blood loss. There's bad blood here, bleeding on the sand. One lonely bull in the ring and a whole lot of matadors. Poor Nikolai, don't you know that the spectators never cheer for the bull? 

Who says people don’t cheer for the bull?

[+Pettytalk]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Who says people don’t cheer for the bull?

You, for one!

[+Pettytalk]

What we have here is a failure to communicate! Let's us get the bull straight.

[+Pettytalk]

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

It came to my understanding today that the Voynich manuscript has been tentatively determined to be an obscure midieval "short-hand" medical writing specific to dealing with the gynecological issues of women; with herbs, bathing and astrological charts to guide remediation of ailments.

It was meant to be read by a doctor, not the populace.

Actually it is not isolated to one side, and not specific to the gentle gender, as there are suggestions on how to reduce a very, very large prostate too. A cure for male prostration?

[Robotic Jew]

28 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Actually it is not isolated to one side, and not specific to the gentle gender, as there are suggestions on how to reduce a very, very large prostate too. A cure for male prostration?

"gentle gender"? Have you ever MET a woman?? They're RUTHLESS.

[+Pettytalk]

56 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

"gentle gender"? Have you ever MET a woman?? They're RUTHLESS.

Apparently not, if they are as you say. But is there not always an exception to the rule? Would you believe me if I said that I have met at least one exception? My mother, Ruth, no less!

[Windowpane]

Voynich manuscript deciphered.

[Eldorado]

2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Voynich manuscript deciphered.

Thank you!

The Paper: "The Language and Writing System of MS408 (Voynich) Explained"

At Taylor and Francis Online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Voynich manuscript deciphered.

I had a look at the "paper" and it doesn't pass the sniff test for me (I still think it's an old fraud and is mostly gibberish though I could be convinced otherwise by better information."

But the starting premise is one that we've seen too many times on this message board and other spaces on the Internet.  To quote from the paper itself: "Unbeknownst to the scholarly community, the manuscript was written in an extinct and hitherto unrecorded language as well as using an unknown writing system."  But luckily newly minted Dr. Cheshire was able to figure it out, thanks to his degree in theology, after encountering the manuscript while finishing his dissertation and studying it for a mere two weeks.

Color me skeptical.