Re: VMs: re: testing Dr. Rugg's theory of hoax

[Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

6/09/2004 7:16:00 PM, Luis Velez <luis.velez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>Gordon Rugg:
>"...the lack of pairs and triplets of words (e.g. "next to", "on top 
>of" in English) is also inconsistent with a real language, or with a 
>word-by-word coding of a real language.

We've been through that and more like it so many times... *sigh*
Let's go through it again. Knowing only English helps a lot in
holding such views. And not looking at the VMS does too.
19 occurrences of chol.daiin, the first pair that came to my 
mind.

>The lack of corrections in the 
>manuscript is also inconsistent with a real language or a code.

I won't even address that. It is too preposterous a non-sequitur
and counter-examples are a dime a dozen.


>"An example from folio 78R of the manuscript reads: qokedy qokedy dal 
>qokedy qokedy. This degree of repetition is not found in any known 
>language. 

Rumahku penuh dengan buku-buku. Di mana-mana di kamar-kamarnya 
ada buku-buku. Buku-buku itu...


>yet more recently:
>
>"... these hints point towards Voynichese  words being `numbers' rather 
>than linguistic entities. Therefore,  the encoding is probably a 
>codebook-based cipher. (A nomenclator, is  that the term?)"
>Source:" On the VMS Word Length Distribution" (2000)
>http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/voynich/00-12-21-word-length-distr/

There is more recent stuff, 2002, I think, which brings back
to the natural-language hypothesis.


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list