04-04-2024, 12:19 PM
Quote:This strongly suggests to me that:
- the text of the VM is not a copy of an identical written text, that would be much easier to write fluidly without difficulties
- the functional (meaningful maybe) chunks of text are often smaller than a vord, the scribes often put a small gap (or vertical offset) consciously or unconsciously to separate them
I fully agree.
Quote:- the scribes didn't always know (or care) where spaces should be: spaces don't matter.
I wouldn't draw any conclusions about spaces. Omissions or incosistencies using spaces can have many explanations. Ican just for get them or use them incorrectly, or not being well versed in writing, I might have problems using them already. One reason can still be that spaces do not matter but that would be quite exceptional imho.
Quote:All this together is consistent with a verbose substitution cipher or similar, where the ciphertext is written one glyph or several glyphs at a time, requiring a break (not on the page) after each functional chunk to get the next from a source that cannot be memorized.
Definitely the the writing system used looks like verbose cipher or dictionary, glyphs have dependency with each other. While glyphs can stand alone in "labelese" does not necessarily mean that they can be used alone but there must have been quite simple rules to find the correct bindings of glyphs to construct vords so for me the scribes needed to be able to memorize the source to be able to do the transformation, and then write it down with needed extras (gallows, benches).
I have many times played with the idea that the glyphs bind together to form parts-of or real words and then concatenated together, bigram-trigrams anagrammed. Like the famous qo could bind not-well-so but oq as so-not-well (and last never used as does not make sense). daiin could be d+a+i -> do-as-said and i+n=here, or d+a=something, iin->something else and combined make sense. I have no idea if anything like this would fit in any statistics, it is just my own idea.