Anyone with any thoughts on this mysterious manuscript?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

http://voynichthoughts.wordpress.com/stroke-theory/

On another group a programmer is attempting to write a program to test
the stroke theory. I'm not betting on his success. I'm inclined to
think it was either a private (manufactured) language (so no
decipherment will work) or a hoax.

Lance

On Nov 3, 5:23 pm, Lance  wrote:
> Anyone with any thoughts on this mysterious manuscript?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
>
> http://voynichthoughts.wordpress.com/stroke-theory/
>
> On another group a programmer is attempting to write a program to test
> the stroke theory. I'm not betting on his success. I'm inclined to
> think it was either a private (manufactured) language (so no
> decipherment will work) or a hoax.
>
It piques the curiosity, certainly. There seem to be lots of reasons
why it isn't a hoax.

The stroke theory sounds one of the sillier ones to me.

If by a private language, you mean the writings of a mad person, then
I think that would be a very good explanation. Something like
C.S.Lewis Narnia world with different invented planets, plants and so
forth and an invented language like Tolkein's. A private fantasy book.
Not necessarily even a mad person - an imaginative and inventive child
might produce just such a thing. I'd say that the plants that show
characteristics of real ones fit that exactly - you can see a clever,
artistic, child copying out a bit of this, melding it with a bit of
that and then naming it in his secret langauge.

That seems to fit all the facts to me.

It's almost a normal part of development - I remember exchanging notes
in runes with a friend of mine at school after reading the Lord of the
Rings. A lonely and energetic child might go as far as writing a whole
book. Given the levels of infant mortality, such a child (probably a
sickly child anyway, to have so much time alone) may have died and the
book saved from his possessions.

Peter Brooks wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:23 pm, Lance  wrote:
> > Anyone with any thoughts on this mysterious manuscript?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
> >
> > http://voynichthoughts.wordpress.com/stroke-theory/
> >
> > On another group a programmer is attempting to write a program to test
> > the stroke theory. I'm not betting on his success. I'm inclined to
> > think it was either a private (manufactured) language (so no
> > decipherment will work) or a hoax.
> >
> It piques the curiosity, certainly. There seem to be lots of reasons
> why it isn't a hoax.
>
> The stroke theory sounds one of the sillier ones to me.
>
> If by a private language, you mean the writings of a mad person, then
> I think that would be a very good explanation. Something like
> C.S.Lewis Narnia world with different invented planets, plants and so
> forth and an invented language like Tolkein's. A private fantasy book.
> Not necessarily even a mad person - an imaginative and inventive child
> might produce just such a thing. I'd say that the plants that show
> characteristics of real ones fit that exactly - you can see a clever,
> artistic, child copying out a bit of this, melding it with a bit of
> that and then naming it in his secret langauge.
>
> That seems to fit all the facts to me.
>
> It's almost a normal part of development - I remember exchanging notes
> in runes with a friend of mine at school after reading the Lord of the
> Rings. A lonely and energetic child might go as far as writing a whole
> book. Given the levels of infant mortality, such a child (probably a
> sickly child anyway, to have so much time alone) may have died and the
> book saved from his possessions.

LOL. I think we will have to call that the sick child theory. And yes,
I think you right - it is a plausible explanation.

Thanks

Lance

Lance wrote:
> Peter Brooks wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 5:23 pm, Lance  wrote:
> > > Anyone with any thoughts on this mysterious manuscript?
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
> > >
> > > http://voynichthoughts.wordpress.com/stroke-theory/
> > >
> > > On another group a programmer is attempting to write a program to test
> > > the stroke theory. I'm not betting on his success. I'm inclined to
> > > think it was either a private (manufactured) language (so no
> > > decipherment will work) or a hoax.
> > >
> > It piques the curiosity, certainly. There seem to be lots of reasons
> > why it isn't a hoax.
> >
> > The stroke theory sounds one of the sillier ones to me.
> >
> > If by a private language, you mean the writings of a mad person, then
> > I think that would be a very good explanation. Something like
> > C.S.Lewis Narnia world with different invented planets, plants and so
> > forth and an invented language like Tolkein's. A private fantasy book.
> > Not necessarily even a mad person - an imaginative and inventive child
> > might produce just such a thing. I'd say that the plants that show
> > characteristics of real ones fit that exactly - you can see a clever,
> > artistic, child copying out a bit of this, melding it with a bit of
> > that and then naming it in his secret langauge.
> >
> > That seems to fit all the facts to me.
> >
> > It's almost a normal part of development - I remember exchanging notes
> > in runes with a friend of mine at school after reading the Lord of the
> > Rings. A lonely and energetic child might go as far as writing a whole
> > book. Given the levels of infant mortality, such a child (probably a
> > sickly child anyway, to have so much time alone) may have died and the
> > book saved from his possessions.
>
> LOL. I think we will have to call that the sick child theory. And yes,
> I think you right - it is a plausible explanation.
>
> Thanks
>
> Lance

Of course the sick child would have had to be very rich because in the
1400s vellum was expensive (the equivalent of thousands of pounds
today) and few people had access to a library...

Lance