Subject: Unconvinced.
Author:
Posted on: 2017-09-08 14:31:00 UTC

Reading the article, there's a lot of 'obviously's, and no evidence. This is the picture that accompanies the article, which purports to interpret two (uncited!) lines of Voynich script. In order to do so, he's separated out the lines, and then freely interpreted the imagined letters as Latin shorthand.

He's also interpreting the same symbol as multiple different words. Check out the one that looks like a swirly comma (last character in the first row on the image); in the first two words of the last line, that is interpreted as both 'cum' and 'con', interpreted as cum and confundo. Remarkable!

Furthermore, he interprets ~80 characters as representing ~54 Latin words; he's extrapolating 'Aromaticus' from 'AR' (which doesn't look a thing like 'AR'); and his numbers would make the entire manuscript well over a hundred thousand words, all written in illegible shorthand. A shorthand that uses a mere 25 characters to convey... well, according to the sample, the same words over and over. I suppose that's fair. De radicus seminis ana J, indeed.

Nah. Call me again when it's peer-reviewed rather than appearing in the Times Literary Supplement.

hS

Reply Return to messages