10-09-2016, 05:39 PM
(10-09-2016, 05:14 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I understand that you are speaking theoretically and, from that point of view, it's a good answer, but it's not enough for them to look like words. If you feel this is a natural language, then you need to identify it (or them). Much of the VMS can be resolved into syllables that look like words (or are words). It's even easier if the door is open to the words being from different languages, but that's not the same as resolving them into actual sentences or meaningful text.
It seems that one has to use about three or four languages to resolve this list into words. Perhaps you can fill in the gaps and explain all of them in a more cohesive way. If they can't be explained, there's a possibility they are just patterns and need to be dissected in another way in order to be understood.
Oh, absolutely, abso-bloody-lutely. The examples are just for the purposes of exposition, and I think they may be wide of the mark (I'm in the dark as to how gallows work). Too often linguistic researchers get a handful of values by some dubious method, look for a language which fits their partial results, then plough on assigning the rest. A single mistake brings down the whole lot because it was just self-reinforcing nonsense in the first place.
I'll plainly state that I'm not sure of the specific sound value for a single character, the meaning of any word, or the identity of the language it has been written in.
However, I think I can argue which characters are vowels and break words into syllables based on them. I feel that the resulting model is at least as good as anything I've seen. I believe it has the potential to inform further research. I've only used the evidence in the text itself to do this, and no "this is a vowel because it looks like Syriac" or "this is a consonant because we have to spell the word Taurus".