20-02-2016, 01:05 PM
Job-
Thank you for your comments and questions..
Nope. I didn't use Professor Stolfi's core, mantle, crust idea. As far as I know, only you and Nick Pelling have thought I did. I do not know why you think this.
I used Professor Stolfi's earlier prefix-midfix-suffix idea with a few more -fixes thrown in. And it is mostly just the idea, not the whole of Professor Stolfi's theory built around that idea.
The only hard and fast criteria I employed was to use what was to be found in the words. I didn't try to put prior constraints on deconstructing the words. Others have and so far seem to be stymied. The 6 groups (one only seldom appearing) reflect what is in the text.
I'm sorry the author of the VMS didn't use a simpler grammar (maybe one with only three elements/code tables?) to accommodate your preferences.
I didn't know Professor Stolfi had written or published any thoughts about the proposed deconstruction process I advocate. So, except for your statement, I don't know what he prefers.
The VMS is what it is, does what it does. I didn't write it.
I'm only showing the proposed pattern, sequence and code tables. They seem to work for 913 out of 918 words, so far - maybe 915 out of 918, if, and when, the other two Group/Table I codes are verified and attributed.
I know there are probably a lot of people that think to themselves that these results can't be right. If they aren't, they do show a whole bunch of coincidences, don't they?
I'm not sure how to ask this nicely, but, in the future on this thread, could we please discuss the pros and cons of the pattern, sequence and codes I have proposed rather than your preferences and expectations or the core, mantle, crust theory of Professor Stolfi. I hope I haven't offended you with this request.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
Thank you for your comments and questions..
Nope. I didn't use Professor Stolfi's core, mantle, crust idea. As far as I know, only you and Nick Pelling have thought I did. I do not know why you think this.
I used Professor Stolfi's earlier prefix-midfix-suffix idea with a few more -fixes thrown in. And it is mostly just the idea, not the whole of Professor Stolfi's theory built around that idea.
The only hard and fast criteria I employed was to use what was to be found in the words. I didn't try to put prior constraints on deconstructing the words. Others have and so far seem to be stymied. The 6 groups (one only seldom appearing) reflect what is in the text.
I'm sorry the author of the VMS didn't use a simpler grammar (maybe one with only three elements/code tables?) to accommodate your preferences.
I didn't know Professor Stolfi had written or published any thoughts about the proposed deconstruction process I advocate. So, except for your statement, I don't know what he prefers.
The VMS is what it is, does what it does. I didn't write it.
I'm only showing the proposed pattern, sequence and code tables. They seem to work for 913 out of 918 words, so far - maybe 915 out of 918, if, and when, the other two Group/Table I codes are verified and attributed.
I know there are probably a lot of people that think to themselves that these results can't be right. If they aren't, they do show a whole bunch of coincidences, don't they?
I'm not sure how to ask this nicely, but, in the future on this thread, could we please discuss the pros and cons of the pattern, sequence and codes I have proposed rather than your preferences and expectations or the core, mantle, crust theory of Professor Stolfi. I hope I haven't offended you with this request.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee