(07-06-2025, 09:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, it could be possible that okechedy is very rare, because it is preferably written opchedy
I am not saying that I think that that is the case. It is just a valid possibility.
If we assume that okechedy = opchedy, and we assume that the preference is to write it opchedy, wouldn't that then require a reason (e.g. subject matter) for the opchedy/okechedy word type to be so predominantly on the top row? And we would likely have to do the same for the other /pch/ and /kech/ words in the list too.
(07-06-2025, 11:25 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.wouldn't that then require a reason (e.g. subject matter) for the opchedy/okechedy word type to be so predominantly on the top row?
Good point.
Every option has its problems though.
For example, why are only
k or
t that are not followed by
e replaced by
f or
p ?
And why are these predominantly on the first rows?
I don't remember exactly the details of Lisa's statistics, they will play a role here.
(07-06-2025, 11:07 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.a radically new script being developed for an existing language
The issue is not that the script is new but is it for an existing language? Almost every mediaeval european language has been tried as a possible fit to the VMS. We have all seen this lately. It is old Bohemian, Slovenian, Turkish, vowel-less Latin, old French. None has succeeded. But perhaps then a non-european language? Possible, but unlikely.
Are you still of the opinion it might be in some Chinese dialect?
(07-06-2025, 11:34 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (07-06-2025, 11:25 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.wouldn't that then require a reason (e.g. subject matter) for the opchedy/okechedy word type to be so predominantly on the top row?
Good point.
Every option has its problems though.
For example, why are only k or t that are not followed by e replaced by f or p ?
And why are these predominantly on the first rows?
I don't remember exactly the details of Lisa's statistics, they will play a role here.
The whole thing is of course quite complex, and that is why I am not in favour of drawing quick conclusions.
Just imagine the possibility that
e is a null character.
Now ignoring the fact that this would bring the A and B languages quite a bit closer together, for the question at hand the whole premise changes, or in fact disappears.
There are just too many variables.
(07-06-2025, 11:38 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are you still of the opinion it might be in some Chinese dialect?
Yes! But not specifically Chinese. It can be any language with monosyllabic words -- which AFAIK includes not only the Chinese "dialects" (actually more than a dozen distinct languages) but also Tibetan, Vietnamese, Laotian, Burmese, Thai, Hmong, ... And of course not how they are today, but how they were 500 years ago...
Unfortunately, no cipher is as hard to decipher as a natural language...
All the best, --jorge
(07-06-2025, 02:14 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.not only the Chinese "dialects" (actually more than a dozen distinct languages) but also Tibetan, Vietnamese, Laotian, Burmese, Thai, Hmong, ...
I think it is unlikely. I have placed my doubts in a new topic. Perhaps you might care to counter my opinions there.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Instance of 2 hapax matching almost all glyphs except
p ≠
t and
ch ≠
c'h
(and gallow bench left leg
c = i, technically)
[
attachment=10797]
Coincidentally two pairs of glyphs not only resembling each other, but also the two benches long-suspected to be equivalent in some way
The fact that they share the same folio and therefore the same context, provides support for a guess that these two vords (that are nowhere near common in the whole MS) are variations or different encodings of the same/similar plaintxt string, or alternatively, a "self-copying" procedure or folio/context-dependent encoding perhaps