A key to understand the VMS

[Torsten]

.....

I think the problem here is that we discuss about the results of the autocopy hypotheses instead of discussing the observations the autocopy is based on. Let me explain what I mean. 

The autocopy hypotheses is bases on certain observations. One observation is that similar words exists for the VMS. The next observation is that similar words do co-occur. The last statement is true for Currier A and B, for the sections of the VMS, for a single page and in my eyes it is even possible to say that  similar words typically occur side by side or one above the other. My next observation is that similar words are related in some way. There are certain rules how it is possible to replace one glyph or glyph sequence with a similar one. Moreover I say that it is possible to predict how frequent a word using for instance 'sh' instead of 'ch' is. This results in a more general statement that there is a tendency that a word is more frequent as more it is similar to one of the three most frequent words of the VMS 'daiin', 'ol' and 'chedy' . My next observation is that it is possible to build a grid or network of similar words in which the words are ordered by similarity and frequency. Based on the observation that it is possible to generate another word type from the word pool by replacing a glyph by a another one, or by adding or deleting a glyph I have build network graph for the VMS. In this graph for 6948 out of 8026 (86,5 %) word types at least one similar type exists (using the transcription of Takeshi Takahashi). Moreover the main network of similar word types is connecting 6837 out of 8026 (85 %) types with each other. At the end I come to the conclusion that the autocopying hypotheses is a possible explanation for this observations. (The list of steps did not contain every detail and is therefore not complete. Sorry.)

If we discuss now the autocopy hypotheses it is unclear if you refuse only the autocopy hypotheses or also the observations the hypotheses is based on. Therefore I would suggest to discuss the observations first. Only if we know where we agree or disagree for the observations we should try to discuss if the autocopy is a possible explanation for this observations.