12-03-2024, 09:59 PM
Between linguistic and non-linguistic is quasi-linguistic. The text is not linguistic, but it sure looks like it is. Which is fascinating in itself. Why present non-linguistic information in a distinctly linguistic form? (Hoax scenarios should be a last resort.) We could present numbers or music or other data in this way, perhaps, but why?
The higher levels of the text display some linguistic features, but under the hood it is thoroughly non-linguistic. How does that happen? By design or accident?
I think linguistic-solution researchers took succour from the Bowen-Lindemann account, but their conclusion that the text is probably linguistic was, I thought, too hasty and unsupported. It depends upon a faulty heirarchy of evidence. (Stephen Bax gave them succour too, and reasons to proceed with confidence.)
Of recent times, I don't think anyone has made any significant advances towards a linguistic solution, whereas in recent decades the evidence for non-linguistic solutions has been impressive, Torsten's research included.
The higher levels of the text display some linguistic features, but under the hood it is thoroughly non-linguistic. How does that happen? By design or accident?
I think linguistic-solution researchers took succour from the Bowen-Lindemann account, but their conclusion that the text is probably linguistic was, I thought, too hasty and unsupported. It depends upon a faulty heirarchy of evidence. (Stephen Bax gave them succour too, and reasons to proceed with confidence.)
Of recent times, I don't think anyone has made any significant advances towards a linguistic solution, whereas in recent decades the evidence for non-linguistic solutions has been impressive, Torsten's research included.