10-09-2016, 01:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2016, 01:41 AM by Emma May Smith.)
(10-09-2016, 12:45 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a problem if you look at the VMS statistically—it occurs to an unusually high degree that is not reminiscent of natural languages. I think it's possible that certain glyphs could stand for multiple characters, but that too reduces the number of glyphs in between that might represent individual letters and we're back to the same problem... unusually constrained glyphs that follow a strict set of rules beyond that of natural languages, a characteristic that argues against them corresponding to sounds if the word breaks are to be believed.
I'm sorry but I don't follow your point. I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you give a specific example to illustrate?
If your objection is based on the strict word structure, then I can half agree. I don't think that the syllables of words are too structured, but the way in which syllables combine into words is.
Quote:I'm not sure if it's what you intended, but the way you worded your statement makes it sound as though you are putting natural language and cryptological theories in two different boxes. Natural language theories and cryptological theories are not separate problems since many enciphered documents are encrypted natural languages. The one that differs is constructed languages. They don't have to follow natural language rules or use the kind of alphabet that would be needed to represent a reasonable number of sounds.
I'm making a point about the surface features. By 'natural language' I mean those theories which state that the underlying language is not greatly or deliberately obscured. By 'cryptological' I mean those theories which state that the features of the underlying language are partly or wholly obscured. I believe that a statistical analysis of the Voynich characters is, in itself, a linguistic analysis.
Though I must object that constructed languages don't follow natural language rules. If they can be spoken or used by humans, then they most certainly do. Phonology and grammar follow universal tendencies. They could be very constrained in their sounds and grammar, but they would still adhere to some underlying principles.