Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r

[bunny]

I find it hard to grasp that you find the concept of inra-word anagramming difficult, as others have also found and used it without such intellectual blockages about it.


Bunny, that's a ridiculously incorrect assumption. I don't find the concept of intra-word anagrams difficult at all. I am constantly looking for anagram patterns in the VMS and other old texts. But I am suspicious of ostensible researchers who suggest methods that randomly apply anagrams when convenient to create what they THINK the text might say, rather than looking for actual clues and patterns in the text.

And that wasn't the point of my post. The fact that you have PRE-DECIDED that glyph anagrams are fine and word anagrams are not (and even confirmed that bias in your last message) is a very big problem.

You cannot predecide how the VMS was done for your convenience or based on your assumption that glyph anagrams were more common than word anagrams. How do you  know that's true? How many medieval texts have you read? Do you know Latin or Middle German or Middle English? Would you recognize this kind of text if you saw it?

Steganography was quite common in the middle ages—monks loved to do it. One form had the decoder picking out which words in a paragraph were part of the code and which ones weren't. Sometimes the relevant words (or letters) ran down the right or left side of the page, sometimes it was every other word (or every third word), sometimes it was capitalized words, sometimes you laid down a stencil to read the relevant words, and sometimes the relevant words were found with a key. Sometimes words or glyphs were read in reverse. Manipulating words rather than glyphs cannot be rejected out of hand. If full words can be manipulated in a steganographic pattern, they can also be anagramed, as it is a related concept, and you have no empirical basis for rejecting the idea unless you provide evidence that it couldn't have been done this way.



Bunny wrote: I'm not looking at a one-way or single any way cipher as you may be assuming this is what it must mean.  Maybe you can't see any merit in what Stella finds, or in any similar methods.

I believe you when you say you are not looking for a one-way cipher but the methods you are supporting ARE, in many cases, one-way ciphers.

It was the concept of intra-word anagrams with the exclusion of inter-word anagrams in this specific case.  I have no problem with either/or/and in medieval documents, but I don't think the VM is a medieval document or even necessarily old in it's current form.  It may have been just as easily copied from a much earlier work or be as late as Voynich.  Neither am I working on empirical basis anymore than kiki boobah needed to.  Again while others talk of cipher cracking, I talk of ALL of these methods being crowbars into the depths of the manuscript opening differing aspects, not one solution, no one pure cipher.  Language is to be human, and to be human is the only requirement to look beyond the rules of grammar back to the beginning when language was thought in sound.  If some people see what appears to be random in the chaos this is maybe just another aspect of what it is to be human, maybe lost in all the evolution of rules and seperation.

It is good to hear you are considering anagramming possibility in comparison to medieval documents, I don't know if that is an area which has many working on.

Bunny