In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M. Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book (manuscript) written on vellum (vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper). The "Voynich manuscript," as it became known, resembles manuscripts written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, it is written in a completely unknown script. To date, no one has been able to decode the script and understand the book's content. Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. One theory is that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, has been identified as a possible author, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham's book on medicinal plants, A Little Herbal, published in 1550. According to some other theories, the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. For example, it has been proposed the manuscript was created by Edward Kelley, a sixteenth century personality who extracted money from nobles across Europe by pretending to have magical powers. Kelley may have created the manuscript as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. He used a made-up alphabet in a completely random order. It looks like a book of magical secrets, but there is no meaningful underlying text. Another theory is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself. As an antique book dealer, Voynich certainly had the knowledge of what old manuscripts should look like and could have created a fake one. Perhaps Voynich's plan was to sell the fake as a mysterious old book if he received an attractive offer.
The lecturer explains why none of the mentioned author could have been the writer of the Voynich manuscript, as the reading claims.
First of all, the speaker discusses why Anthony Ascham could not have been the writer. He says that Ascham was an ordinary scholar, and most of his work lack originality such as the Little herbs, which is based on well-known sources. Hence, he could not have the gift to write such a well-coded, elaborated manuscript. This dircetky refutes the reading passage which states that Ascham could have written the Voynich manuscript.
Second of all, The professor elaborates why Edward Kelly could not be the author. He mentioned that wealthy people who lived in Kelly time were easy to deceive; as a result, if Kelly wanted to make a profit out of the book, a much simpler book would have done the work. Again this rebuts what the author claims that Kelly made the book looks like a magic spill to fool the rich people.
Finally, the speaker wraps up his argument by justifying why Wilfrid Voynich himself could have not be able to create the book. He says that studies show that the ink and Vellum are 400 years ago. Therefore, even if Voynich wanted to make a fake one, he could nor due to shortage of the materials. This shows that the author’s believe is wrong with regards that Voynich have made the book to make money.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nich manuscript, as the reading claims. First of all, the speaker discusses why ...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 101, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
... Wilfrid Voynich himself could have not be able to create the book. He says that s...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, look, second, so, therefore, well, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1129.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 240.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.70416666667 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93597934253 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.26519176892 2.5805825403 88% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.566666666667 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 337.5 419.366225166 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.5042986485 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.0833333333 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148492985761 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0595959124906 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0410520534095 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0948608164265 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374942182963 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.98 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.