Of course not, neither is Serafini's. That's why I asked for your hot take. I was just looking at the Habsburgs today and didn't realize they were reputed owners of the Voynich. That puts Voynich back way up on my radar. But between my cryptanalytical and interpretative gifts and the work that's already been done with Voynichese, I haven't been told to seclude myself so as to determine if John Dee or someone else wrote it and what it was intended to communicate, to whom.
I think it's a fake. It employs a level of reduplication that no European language has ever come close to using. English has a little reduplication (we have a fair number of uses of "that that," for example, and we have a few idioms like hush-hush and win-win). Asian languages have more. But the Voynich manuscript goes nuts with it. In its short 38,000 word length, it has 250 instances of double-reduplication and 10 instances of triple-reduplication. It's far more frequent than in any known language on Earth.
WIL (will) FRID (freed) VOY (to go) NICH (to inflect; bend inwards)
To go (voy) freed (frid) will (wil) aka nature advancing each natives free will of choice implies an infliction aka to impose (inception towards death) that which must be (life) suffered aka a bending out of line.
To distract many from natural infliction; few suggest artificial inflection.
act smart
Nature acts; native reacts. Smart (sharp) implies nature enacting the edge of knowing (knowledge) through each reacting native within.
Nature inflicts knowledge; artifice inflects understanding (standing under)...if consented to.
linguists
An -ist (linguist) implies ones consent to a suggested -ism (linguism) shaping a consensus with one another....that's not how a lingu/dnghu (tongue) works. Ones tongue has to be free to articulate words to one another. The more consensus is formed with one another; the more restricted ones tongue becomes by speech codes, which is how few restrict the "freedom of speech" among many.
Look at this... https://www.etymonline.com/word/lingo and notice "foreign speech". Native speech implies each natives tongue within natural sound; while foreign speech implies the crafted spells of one another restricting ones native tongue...if consented to.
wartime
Notice that the duration (time) of conflict (war) isn't determined by those fighting in the ring (circular conflict), but by those outside (linear procession).
Germany won WWI yet wasn't authorized to declare herself winner; nor did England; France and Russia had the authority to declare themselves losers. Instead the time of war continued as a "meat grinder" until the jewish hidden hand brought in the US to put a quick end to the prolonged suffering.
Taking a measurement (time) tempts one to ignore linear procession while shaping circular conflict (war) against one another...few shape wartime to distract many from discerning this.
codebreakers
A suggested code (systematic compilation of laws) has to be artificially shaped before it can be broken apart again...doing so distracts ones perception from discerning self as a broken part within the analytical process of natural law.
A jew shapes code to establish a dance among the broken gentiles battling each other. Notice that breakdancer are battling within a CYPHER...
VERY COOL.
Want to give us the summary and what you think it says? One may need the gift of interpretation of tongues.
Luigi Serafini wrote a similar book ....
Oh you think its a fake?
Of course not, neither is Serafini's. That's why I asked for your hot take. I was just looking at the Habsburgs today and didn't realize they were reputed owners of the Voynich. That puts Voynich back way up on my radar. But between my cryptanalytical and interpretative gifts and the work that's already been done with Voynichese, I haven't been told to seclude myself so as to determine if John Dee or someone else wrote it and what it was intended to communicate, to whom.
I think it's a fake. It employs a level of reduplication that no European language has ever come close to using. English has a little reduplication (we have a fair number of uses of "that that," for example, and we have a few idioms like hush-hush and win-win). Asian languages have more. But the Voynich manuscript goes nuts with it. In its short 38,000 word length, it has 250 instances of double-reduplication and 10 instances of triple-reduplication. It's far more frequent than in any known language on Earth.
I wasn't gonna say it but you (mostly) took the words right outta my brain as I thought them.
To go (voy) freed (frid) will (wil) aka nature advancing each natives free will of choice implies an infliction aka to impose (inception towards death) that which must be (life) suffered aka a bending out of line.
To distract many from natural infliction; few suggest artificial inflection.
Nature acts; native reacts. Smart (sharp) implies nature enacting the edge of knowing (knowledge) through each reacting native within.
Nature inflicts knowledge; artifice inflects understanding (standing under)...if consented to.
An -ist (linguist) implies ones consent to a suggested -ism (linguism) shaping a consensus with one another....that's not how a lingu/dnghu (tongue) works. Ones tongue has to be free to articulate words to one another. The more consensus is formed with one another; the more restricted ones tongue becomes by speech codes, which is how few restrict the "freedom of speech" among many.
Look at this... https://www.etymonline.com/word/lingo and notice "foreign speech". Native speech implies each natives tongue within natural sound; while foreign speech implies the crafted spells of one another restricting ones native tongue...if consented to.
Notice that the duration (time) of conflict (war) isn't determined by those fighting in the ring (circular conflict), but by those outside (linear procession).
Germany won WWI yet wasn't authorized to declare herself winner; nor did England; France and Russia had the authority to declare themselves losers. Instead the time of war continued as a "meat grinder" until the jewish hidden hand brought in the US to put a quick end to the prolonged suffering.
Taking a measurement (time) tempts one to ignore linear procession while shaping circular conflict (war) against one another...few shape wartime to distract many from discerning this.
A suggested code (systematic compilation of laws) has to be artificially shaped before it can be broken apart again...doing so distracts ones perception from discerning self as a broken part within the analytical process of natural law.
A jew shapes code to establish a dance among the broken gentiles battling each other. Notice that breakdancer are battling within a CYPHER...