Re: VMs: Welsh/Cornish

[Arqy0plex@xxxxxxx]

> jean-yves artero 
>He is trying to fit Welsh into Voynichese (or
>squeeze Welsh out of it) and is already reduced 
>to having single Voynich letters encode digraphs
>and even trigraphs like "ry" and "ryd".

Then you discount any possibility of (any) Voynich symbols being composed of more than one letter? According to you, it absolutely must be "one symbol equals one letter" ? 

>A weird sort of Welsh too. He gives <q> as the
>article "y". But he also gives <o> as "o".

Sometimes "o" really is just an "o"....

>The VMS then would have an extraordinarily high
>proportion of nouns starting with "o"--about 99%. 

"o-", used as a prefix, can mean "of, from, with". Not counting words that actually begin with "o"..... (and there are many.)

>Next, "y" never occurs before a word starting with a vowel.

"Never"? Then some of the glossaries I referenced must be replete with typos: "ya"; "yach"; "yech"; "yedhow"; "yoch"; "yor". 

> Another form of the
>article, "yr", is used instead. So <qo> should
>not occur at all.

Yet it does....

>Need I say more?
>All right, just a little more.
><in> is "n" and <iin> is "m".
>Consequence: no Welsh word (at least in
>the VMS) starts with "n" nor "m". Just
>like Levitov's "Dutch". 

In Welsh (and Cornish) pronunciation (especially at the beginnings of words), "m" often mutates into the sound of "b" or "p". Attacking the VMS from a language standpoint, phonetics cannot be ignored. I believe the VMS author wrote down many of the words as he would have pronounced them. Hence the "m" (EVA "sh") at the beginning of a VMS word is actually (my) "b" in pronunciation (and therefore in spelling.)

>Nonsense not even worth the Web space it 
>occupies and, let's face it, nowadays Web 
>space is *cheap*

If you aren't interested in somebody else's theories, then just say so. At least have I tried something,and, in my opinion, gotten concrete results.  I subscribe to this list, and I keep an open mind about what others present. But I have my theory, and I will stick to it until/unless somebody else can present a convincing solution to the VMS. My proof (as it is) may not convince *you*, but then I'm not expecting it to. You seem set in your ways, and I'm not going to argue you out of your preconceptions. But others may be interested in what I have to present, and that is the reason for my (as you like to call it) "cheap nonsense". They can decide for themselves. That's not harming you in any way, is it?
Maybe you've seen so much "nonsense" about the VMS that it has blinded you against *any* new idea that appears. That's not something I have to apologize for.