Although I am no linguist, I must say that Gerard Cheshire’s work does not have the ring of truth to it. I have been unable to find any reputable linguists that back up his work. 

I too am astonished that this could pass into a peer-reviewed journal. So far I am not convinced.

Itlani Jim

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jörg Rhiemeier
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Voynich Manuscript language apparently deciphered

Hallo conlangers!

On 15/05/19 19:34, John Q wrote:

> Looks like the full paper is available online:

First impression: A flight of fancy, nothing else, and one riddled with
linguistic errors so blatant that even a non-specialist like me can
easily spot them leafing through it. Proto-Romance was a dead language
in the 15th century, and the claim that had survived in "evolutionary
stasis" in Ischia (or some other place) is nonsense. (And why should it
be written in a script of its own?) Proto-Romance was spoken in the
Roman Empire before 500 AD, and was *unknown and forgotten* in the 15th
century - *nobody* could have written a book in that language at that
time! We now know it because we have the comparative method, but that
was only developed in the 19th century. The author also apparently
doesn't know the difference between a triphthong (a syllable nucleus
consisting of three segments) and a three-letter ligature. I am puzzled
how such a thing could pass the peer review board of a journal dedicated
to Romance language studies!

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf