Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?

The French magazine Science & Vie features an article on the Voynich
manuscript this month---but it does not mention the Michelangelo hypothesis.
I have a Codex Seraphinianus home. It's insanely completely nonsensical as a
whole and makes me kind of sick when I thumb it through. I have no doubt
that the "texts" are nothing but maniac, compulsive, meaningless squiggles.

µ

The new Tunu language is @
http://conlang.free.fr

David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...> asita tibinai u:
<<<
Responding to the original question, it's very difficult.   (Well,
actually I might be misunderstanding the question--we'll see.)
The Codex Seraphinianvs is a book written in 3 invented scripts
(one for the numbers, one for the regular text, and one for the
titles--well, and there's also a made-up hieroglyphic text on one
page).   It looks very much like a real script that can be used to
write a real language.   Nevertheless, I've tried my hardest to
decipher it, and I just can't believe that there's actually a language
behind it.   Some of the combinations of letters are just too
random.   Maybe each page encodes a different language; I don't
know.   All I know is that when I see something I've identified
as a character show in different words once, twice in a row,
three times in a row, four times in a row, five times in a row,
six times in a row, seven times in a row, eight times and a row,
*and* nine times in a row, it simply strikes me as highly unlikely
that the script is recording anything real.   [Not that a letter *couldn't*
do that and stand for a real language, but I somehow doubt
that Luigi Serafini was a good enough conlanger to do that.]
>>>