23-04-2019, 01:08 PM
21 out of 86 is a minority. It is not a significant amount. How hard can it be to see this?
To explain 21 words you already need 3 rules.
In this list:
I have no problem with the first four, but the last is again a different rule, and now not only 'f' and 'cfh' but also 'cfhh' would be equivalent with 'd'.
Let me see if I can insert the complete list:
Now don't get me wrong: I would have been quite pleased if the suggested correspondence really existed, because it would tell us something new about the system behind the text. However, it only works (more or less) for a small subset of the words.
To explain 21 words you already need 3 rules.
In this list:
Quote:[shckhefy] / [shckhedy]
[chepchefy] / [chepchedy]
[qopchcfhy] / [qopchdy]
[pcheocfhy] / [pcheody]
[ckhcfhhy] / [ckhdy]
I have no problem with the first four, but the last is again a different rule, and now not only 'f' and 'cfh' but also 'cfhh' would be equivalent with 'd'.
Let me see if I can insert the complete list:
Now don't get me wrong: I would have been quite pleased if the suggested correspondence really existed, because it would tell us something new about the system behind the text. However, it only works (more or less) for a small subset of the words.

