By Gordon Rugg
In the first part of this pair of articles, I looked at the general principles that linguists use when trying to identify a previously unknown language.
In this article, I’ll look at what happens when you apply those principles to the Voynich Manuscript.
In brief, it doesn’t end well for the idea that the manuscript is written in an unidentified language. That idea was tried and rejected by the specialists decades ago, for very good reasons. Anyone trying to resurrect the “unidentified language” theory needs to show that they’ve found a convincing set of counter-arguments to those reasons for rejection. So far, nobody’s come close; instead, the recent theories simply ignore the show-stopping problems.
Here are some of those reasons.
(Image courtesy of the Beinecke Library.)