23-03-2020, 03:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-03-2020, 03:18 PM by Mark Knowles.)
I think one problem that people, who claim it is all nonsense, have is that you can't prove it is nonsense. For example, it could be 99.9% nonsense and 0.1% meaning and that is fundamentally difficult if not impossible to prove. More realistically it could be 80% filler nonsense text and 20% real text, which is still difficult to disprove.
I find the idea that it is an artificial language a catch all which for that reason is difficult to disprove. An artificial language in its broadest sense it seems to me could have almost any properties that one can imagine. In fact a cipher and a straight natural language could arguably be a subset of that.
I find the idea that it is an artificial language a catch all which for that reason is difficult to disprove. An artificial language in its broadest sense it seems to me could have almost any properties that one can imagine. In fact a cipher and a straight natural language could arguably be a subset of that.