11-05-2024, 08:21 AM
(10-05-2024, 07:47 PM)Torsten wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even on his latest website about a related topic our research is not even mentioned [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. I wish to emphasize here that I do not criticize the fact that researchers like René Zandbergen, or Claire Bowern obviously see our work as completely irrelevant.
It's probably worth setting a few points straight, even if it is partly off-topic to this thread.
I agree that there isn't a lot about your work at my web site, but at least there is a mention You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the important references.
More importantly, I do not have any issue with the possibility that the text is meaningless.
It could well be.
That the text is meaningful is a logical fist assumption, but the evidence for it is very thin.
More than that, I would say that it is probably natural to wish or hope that there is meaning, but if one is serious about it, one has to be able to drop such feelings.
What I do not agree with, is that the proposed methods both by Rugg, and by yourself are 'how it was done'. More specifially, I do not agree that the evidence that has been presented comes anywhere near demonstrating it.
While the existence of the network of words based on single Levenshtein distances is undoubtledly an important key to 'how it was done', this does not at all explain why there are so many forbidden changes. That is another important key.
These 'rules' about what is allowed and what is forbidden are more the topic of the approaches in this thread, and in Massimo Zattera's work. And of course in the various word paradigms that culminated in Stolfi's various word grammars.