10-03-2016, 10:25 PM
(10-03-2016, 09:47 PM)crezac wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Off the top of my head here some possible ways to encode information using a character set. I am not endorsing any of them, just offering them as examples.
1. Symbolic (maybe mixed logographic?) - a key part of the string is the word and everything else is modifiers. For example 1+Gbos could encode the word cow used as an adjective (the 1 for part of speech, the + to indicate that it has a positive connotation as used in this sentence, the G to indicate feminine and bos as the base word being modified), bull would be 1+Mbos. So that would make a this guessable -- 1-Mbos 2+Mpoo. In theory 2+Gbos could be fresh young coriander if 2 indicates nouns, + means fresh or new for nouns, G indicates a plant, b indicates a subset of plant types like medicinal herbs and os indicates the one that corresponds to coriander. The number of usable symbols is very large because character order and a rule set means that one character may play many roles. Systems like this are used in knowledge representation; they have the advantage that you can be very specific about a piece of information in a small amount of space. The bad thing is that while the encoding system is always logical the logic isn't always obvious.
2. Mixed phonological representation where some characters always represent syllables and other characters always represent a single sound.
3. Mixed symbolic where you have a phonological representation but special characters or rules can change the meaning without changing pronunciation or symbol order. God and god in English is a trivial example of this.
There are probably a lot more systems and combinations of systems possible. Whatever is going on in VMS it's not trivial.
I think 1) would be more a question of the underlying message. What you're suggesting is more like a code or artificial language. I'm not wholly against the idea of it, thought I fear that it would prove almost impossible to crack. I wonder how we could prove that your suggestion was true, or at least as plausible as alternatives?
For 3) linguistic analysis should still be possible, at least on the phonological level.