M. Yokubinas translation

[-JKP-]

3. "My main concern about it is that there is still the problem of explaining the unorthodox letter frequency and position"

The fact that you are perfectly happy with the total absence of a grammar is puzzling. Is it unfair to think that grammar should play a role in a consistent translation? Lisa Fagin Davis observed that Gibb's work must be rejected because it is not grammatically correct. Monica's work is no better.

Anyway, the problem you mention can be easily solved by assuming a nomenclator (something like Rene's mod_2). You may conclude that Monica has discovered that this nomenclator is somehow mnemonic and a clever researcher may "consistently" guess the right word and retrieve the original "meaning" (which happens to be largely incoherent).

I've said in past posts that the lack of grammar disturbs me also. It's a long thread (several, actually) and I've addressed many of these aspects several times. If you look at the early part of the thread, you'll see I posted a list of concerns (plus more in other posts). Since I've listed these concerns before, I was trying to keep it simple and address only the main differences between Cheshire's and Monica's approach, so that it didn't become a total repeat of a dozen (or more) previous posts.

Her method can be replicated (regardless of what one feels about the outcome). Cheshire's cannot. It's subjective. Semitic languages did exist in the 15th century. "Proto-romance" did not.



Since the earliest posts weren't having an impact, I tried another way of approaching it in Post #16, a one-step-at-a-time approach. Solve this basic problem first and if that can be done, then deal with the grammar. As it stands, I'm still waiting for the concerns expressed in that post to be addressed.


P.S., Marco, if you spent time on this that may have been unproductive because I was unclear, then I apologize. I consider your time and your input invaluable.