02-07-2020, 06:59 PM
What will it take? A new approach.
I'm rarely involved in the linguistic investigations, so perhaps a more distant perspective. Much of current analysis is statistical. It's like putting text content in a blender and examining what comes out. Investigations keep hammering and hammering, and let's say: yes, a lot has been learned. BUT the fact is - no solution.
Time to use a different tool. Instead of the hammer, use the pincers. Attack from two sides. The hammer will serve as one half of the pincers, but what about the other half?
There are two parts to investigation: the method and the subject. The hammer is the method and and the subject is not the VMs text in its entirety, but a single line from the text - because, if we can't read a single line - how do we expect to read the whole thing?
The other part of the pincers is the subject of investigation. The subject is a single line of text. Where does it come from? Start at the beginning? Choose it at random? Does the VMs provide any clues? Is there any kind of pictorial linguistic interface that connects both parts together?
Gosh, that's a tough one. - - Of course there is! There are Stolfi's markers all over. And if they were all equivalent, it would be a long haul going through them. Fortunately, a few examples of the deluxe version of Stolfi's markers are to be found in the VMs version of the Zodiac sequence - with a pair of markers in the text bands of VMs White Aries. [And the only other one in Cancer.]
So when the VMs investigator asks for a specific text segment to examine, the VMs replies by having a pope (a pope in disguise) present the specially marked texts of White Aries. The historical investigator wins the VMs game of 'Where's Baldo?' by knowing that the stripes are blue. The VMs creator has built a text segment delivery apparatus. You have to wonder why - other than the obvious.
I'm rarely involved in the linguistic investigations, so perhaps a more distant perspective. Much of current analysis is statistical. It's like putting text content in a blender and examining what comes out. Investigations keep hammering and hammering, and let's say: yes, a lot has been learned. BUT the fact is - no solution.
Time to use a different tool. Instead of the hammer, use the pincers. Attack from two sides. The hammer will serve as one half of the pincers, but what about the other half?
There are two parts to investigation: the method and the subject. The hammer is the method and and the subject is not the VMs text in its entirety, but a single line from the text - because, if we can't read a single line - how do we expect to read the whole thing?
The other part of the pincers is the subject of investigation. The subject is a single line of text. Where does it come from? Start at the beginning? Choose it at random? Does the VMs provide any clues? Is there any kind of pictorial linguistic interface that connects both parts together?
Gosh, that's a tough one. - - Of course there is! There are Stolfi's markers all over. And if they were all equivalent, it would be a long haul going through them. Fortunately, a few examples of the deluxe version of Stolfi's markers are to be found in the VMs version of the Zodiac sequence - with a pair of markers in the text bands of VMs White Aries. [And the only other one in Cancer.]
So when the VMs investigator asks for a specific text segment to examine, the VMs replies by having a pope (a pope in disguise) present the specially marked texts of White Aries. The historical investigator wins the VMs game of 'Where's Baldo?' by knowing that the stripes are blue. The VMs creator has built a text segment delivery apparatus. You have to wonder why - other than the obvious.