Having recently seen this question become quite popular on r/Askhistorians and with previous discussions having also occurred, I am curious regarding the recent article that the Voynich manuscript as solved. Is this real? What is the real significance?
Here is the article of the scholar who claims to have interpreted the code.
Part 1 of 2
No, it's not real. The claim is completely made up out of whole cloth and every linguist on the planet will be able to tell you the same thing. I know this is not the sub to discuss original research or claims, so I'll include the opinion of a paleographer and codicologist Lisa Fagin Davis at the off:
As with most would-be Voynich interpreters, the logic of this proposal is circular and aspirational: he starts with a theory about what a particular series of glyphs might mean, usually because of the word's proximity to an image that he believes he can interpret. He then investigates any number of medieval Romance-language dictionaries until he finds a word that seems to suit his theory. Then he argues that because he has found a Romance-language word that fits his hypothesis, his hypothesis must be right. His "translations" from what is essentially gibberish, an amalgam of multiple languages, are themselves aspirational rather than being actual translations.
In addition, the fundamental underlying argument—that there is such a thing as one 'proto-Romance language'—is completely unsubstantiated and at odds with paleolinguistics. Finally, his association of particular glyphs with particular Latin letters is equally unsubstantiated. His work has never received true peer review, and its publication in this particular journal is no sign of peer confidence. source
To my knowledge no linguists have commented yet, but we will. The paper may be dated to April 29, but it only hit news and blogging hubs within the last 12 hours. Everyone from The Guardian to Fox News is carrying it. All of them are presupposing the authenticity of the claims, when it was not peer-reviewed, and all of them are marketing the author as a linguist. Dr. Gerard Cheshire is a Human Behavioral Ecologist who writes about Peruvian wildlife. That in itself isn't damning, we can all have a hobby, but it is irresponsible to mischaracterize his position or background in a way that presupposes the value of the paper he's released. All I can say is there will be a lot of red faces in the morning, and they should feel a real and palpable shame. That's perhaps the more important historical event here. (continued)
Additional question if I may:
In the previous question here u/owlettt comes with a series of reasons the document is a fake.
According to the article it is written in the only known example of proto-Romance language.
Could there still have been pockets where this language or something similar was spoken, let's say around the time it was found or supposedly falsified?
I ask because I am wondering if this automatically proofs that it is genuine.