A mixture of languages and scripts, has been tried by me. If you mix languages, the analysis of the text shows more and more a universal picture.
If you use a raw and pure language, the analysis show very distinct features. That is also very logical knowing that many European languages are related to each other: if you mix them, specific features will diminish.
Your second possibility of phonetic scripture was also examined by me. This results in even more distinct characteristics than a natural language. Although that would make the language somewhat more difficult to match with a known language, i will notice.
The same for dialects, give me any dialect, substitute the letters also if you want, but i think i can easily see the language base.
In the VMS language, the main problem lies in the fact that in a normal language, almost every letter that exists in the text, always occurs at least the same percentage on the first position of a word, as it does on another position. Second big problem is that the "flow" of the letters is not correct (in my language diagram watch the flow of the yellow bars). And last but not least, the letters on the last positions are not consistent with other languages.
Currier A and B are almost the same. Despite of some words that occur more in the other, the language construction is statistically exactly the same.
If we talk about a book, it would have:
page numbers, ok check
logical paging, ok check
a story to tell, ok check
consistent writing, (left-to-right, paleo typeface) ok check
>> plant-pictures in the Vms are intended to form a 'herbal'
Well, i think Marco showed us many drawings, similar to those in the VMS in many threads. Or what do you mean?
What would be more interesting, yesterday i found only 1 herbal in the VMS that occurs twice.
Now i can try to compare the text and see if i can find similarities. My main question is: are there more "double herbals" inside the VMS?
>>..herbals of the formal sort, and I should also like to know whether the usual techniques for decrypting a cipher presume standard and consistent orthography.
I do not understand what you mean, could you elaborate?
If you use a raw and pure language, the analysis show very distinct features. That is also very logical knowing that many European languages are related to each other: if you mix them, specific features will diminish.
Your second possibility of phonetic scripture was also examined by me. This results in even more distinct characteristics than a natural language. Although that would make the language somewhat more difficult to match with a known language, i will notice.
The same for dialects, give me any dialect, substitute the letters also if you want, but i think i can easily see the language base.
In the VMS language, the main problem lies in the fact that in a normal language, almost every letter that exists in the text, always occurs at least the same percentage on the first position of a word, as it does on another position. Second big problem is that the "flow" of the letters is not correct (in my language diagram watch the flow of the yellow bars). And last but not least, the letters on the last positions are not consistent with other languages.
Currier A and B are almost the same. Despite of some words that occur more in the other, the language construction is statistically exactly the same.
If we talk about a book, it would have:
page numbers, ok check
logical paging, ok check
a story to tell, ok check
consistent writing, (left-to-right, paleo typeface) ok check
>> plant-pictures in the Vms are intended to form a 'herbal'
Well, i think Marco showed us many drawings, similar to those in the VMS in many threads. Or what do you mean?
What would be more interesting, yesterday i found only 1 herbal in the VMS that occurs twice.
Now i can try to compare the text and see if i can find similarities. My main question is: are there more "double herbals" inside the VMS?
>>..herbals of the formal sort, and I should also like to know whether the usual techniques for decrypting a cipher presume standard and consistent orthography.
I do not understand what you mean, could you elaborate?