(23-12-2016, 02:36 PM)bunny wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-12-2016, 12:19 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote pid='10158' dateline='1482483453']
Teague was using anagrams. Given the preponderance of vowels and the high level of repetition, shuffling the above letters doesn't do much to increase their readibility.
Yes he was and so have others including myself, also the words mostly lacked all letters by 1 or 2. Modern text speak is heading the way of missing letters and shorthand adverts of the old days looked like this:
If u cn rd ths, u cn bcm a sec & gt a gd jb
I'm guessing everyone can read that mostly it's just missing vowels. The approach of unscrambling a scrambled and slightly incomplete word is not that different or too many steps removed. While it may present many alternatives to choose from, another often quoted criticism, it would be the ability (if indeed there is such a thing) to pull the needle out of the haystack which is relevant. You have Stellar's "preponderance of vowels and the high level of repetition", find the correct consonants to complete the words.
Bunny
[/quote]
Bunny, the textspeak you wrote in this message is pretty close to how they wrote Latin in the 15th century if you factor in the various squiggles and lines above the words (and sometimes even those were left out), so those of us who read medieval documents are quite accustomed to looking for abbreviated text and filling in the spaces. It's not something new to us.
But as Thomas points out, if two different people can generate two wildly different interpretations (and that's only in one language, imagine the other language possibilities), then the method (whether right or wrong) does little to reveal what is actually in the document.