18-03-2019, 11:00 PM
Hi Antonio,
The "otol test" is focused solely on the assumption of labels as designators. In fact, it is invoked as an illustration to disprove that assumption. What you are speaking about is not designation. For example, if we see a star and read its position nearby, then the label is not that star's name. It's some attribute or association. That's what I am arguing - that star labels (and possibly not only those) are not names, but some associations. In other words, they are not designators, but "pointers" or "referrers".
Whether "otol" is an "otol", or is not, is an altogether different question which is independent of whether labels are designators or not. Some do think of Voynichese glyphs as letters/sounds, some do not, but both those categories of researchers can consider labels as names or as not names. Those are just two different problems.
The "otol test" is focused solely on the assumption of labels as designators. In fact, it is invoked as an illustration to disprove that assumption. What you are speaking about is not designation. For example, if we see a star and read its position nearby, then the label is not that star's name. It's some attribute or association. That's what I am arguing - that star labels (and possibly not only those) are not names, but some associations. In other words, they are not designators, but "pointers" or "referrers".
Whether "otol" is an "otol", or is not, is an altogether different question which is independent of whether labels are designators or not. Some do think of Voynichese glyphs as letters/sounds, some do not, but both those categories of researchers can consider labels as names or as not names. Those are just two different problems.