14-02-2020, 01:01 AM
(13-02-2020, 05:27 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But... the positional and frequency characteristics of the VMS are wrong for ANY natural language, so regardless of what language a person chooses for a solution, that person HAS to explain these differences if they are proposing a simple-substitution transliteration.
Isn't this almost like a paradox? Most researchers here believe that any proposed solution should explain the positional frequency characteristics of the VMS, which are wrong for any natural language.
So are we expecting a constructed language to be the answer? Or meaningless text? I believe it is unfair to say that the solution should explain the frequency numbers. All languages have a number of linguistic phenomena underlying it. For example as someone pointed out, in English we have multi to multi correspondence for letter/letter combos to sound. But if someone proposes such a solution, we ignore it saying it has many degrees of freedom. I dont think English would ever be reconstructed by people with this mindset in the future if it were to be a lost language at the time.
If a solution seems inconsistent, apply it to more pages and show the person why it seems stupid. I think without knowing the querks of the language its impossible to say why the frequencies are what they are..