24-06-2019, 10:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 24-06-2019, 12:19 PM by Torsten.
Edit Reason: typo
)
Hi Marco,
your answer contains many different arguments, ideas and what you believe. Therefore I will split my answer into two parts. In this post I will answer to the points concerning natural language. In a second post I will answer the points concerning the self-citation method.
It seems that you believe that if you want to demonstrate that the VMS represents language it is only necessary to point to a feature shared by the VMS-text and a language. But not every thing with some wheels is a cart and not every being with two legs is a duck. With other words you can't cherry pick the features you want to compare.
It is therefore problematic that your paper does not address known counter arguments to the natural language hypothesis. Moreover you come yourself to the conclusion that "the second glyph in a combination depends on the first". You don't address the objection of Currier that it is typical for natural languages that the suffix of a word depends on the beginning of the next word. This means that you present in fact a counter argument against the natural language hypothesis without discussing this point.
Another point is that the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). In my eyes it is relevant that this observation is not consistent for the whole text. You also argue that such differences are relevant in your eyes: "There would need to be a separate cause for the increase in the number of words beginning with [o] and an additional process to bring them into the combination [n.o]" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). The paper only uses this difference to argue against the idea that the "arrangement of whole words creates certain word-break combinations" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But how do you explain the differences between Currier A and B within the natural language hypothesis?
You say that you prefer to believe that the VMS contains meaningful words. It will not surprise you that such a statement does not convince me.
your answer contains many different arguments, ideas and what you believe. Therefore I will split my answer into two parts. In this post I will answer to the points concerning natural language. In a second post I will answer the points concerning the self-citation method.
It seems that you believe that if you want to demonstrate that the VMS represents language it is only necessary to point to a feature shared by the VMS-text and a language. But not every thing with some wheels is a cart and not every being with two legs is a duck. With other words you can't cherry pick the features you want to compare.
It is therefore problematic that your paper does not address known counter arguments to the natural language hypothesis. Moreover you come yourself to the conclusion that "the second glyph in a combination depends on the first". You don't address the objection of Currier that it is typical for natural languages that the suffix of a word depends on the beginning of the next word. This means that you present in fact a counter argument against the natural language hypothesis without discussing this point.
Another point is that the paper describes relevant differences between Currier A and B and argues that "word-break combinations are more predictable than for Latin and English, and also more predictable in Currier B than for Italian" (E. Smith and M. Ponzi 2019, p. 14). In my eyes it is relevant that this observation is not consistent for the whole text. You also argue that such differences are relevant in your eyes: "There would need to be a separate cause for the increase in the number of words beginning with [o] and an additional process to bring them into the combination [n.o]" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). The paper only uses this difference to argue against the idea that the "arrangement of whole words creates certain word-break combinations" (Smith & Ponzi, p. 18). But how do you explain the differences between Currier A and B within the natural language hypothesis?
You say that you prefer to believe that the VMS contains meaningful words. It will not surprise you that such a statement does not convince me.