[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Back to basics - or musings of an old bore
Jorge Stolfi wrote:
> > [Karl] 2) The writing appears too fluid to be something as clunky as a
> > codebook. The scribes were relatively fluent (to different
> > degrees) in writing text in whatever system was involved.
> This is a good point. All I can think of:
> * The only handwriting expert whose opinion we have
> stated quite flatly that there was only one scribe.
> * The standard Chinese writing system is essentially a codebook
> cipher, yet zillions of people have learned to write it fluently
> and quickly, without looking at the "code book".
Yes, but it takes years to achieve this.
Now another tonal language using (as far as I know) mostly mono-syllabic
words, is Thai. It has an alphabetic script, which was devised not
long before the proposed date of the VMs, and the script has a
way of indicating the tones (although, again as far as I know,
in a rather incosistent manner).
> * The VMS at Beinecke may be a clean copy of a clunky
> working draft.
Or the scribe just practiced a lot beforehand...
> > I really wish we knew more about what Manly had in mind when he
> > said the Mss was in "a comparatively simple cipher disguised by
> > extensive use of nulls." The next time someone is at Yale it
> > would be useful if they'd look at this 20 Mar 1920 letter to
> > Mrs. Voynich.
> I would not put too much hope on that "solution"; it sounds like
> another case of self-delusion.
Like Fermat? Do we really know what he was on to when he wrote his
famous last theorem?