(11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More specifially, I do not agree that the evidence that has been presented comes anywhere near demonstrating it.
Sorry, but agreeing or disagreeing with something is not an argument in itself.
(11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
This only underscores my statement that you reject my entire work without even discussing it.
(11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
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.
The network defines what is 'allowed' and what is not. Therefore, the shift from Currier A to Currier B occurs because the text changes alongside the network of similar words [see Timm & Schinner 2019, p. 6].
VMS word grammars, like that proposed by Zattera or Stolfi, are principally problematic: they all tag a significant vocabulary portion of an unknown writing system as 'irregular,' usually words that appear as concatenation of two 'regular' words, or very low frequency words (that usually are seen as errors because they violate the rules just by a single glyph). Several words characteristic for Currier B sections are very rare in Currier A - and would probably be called 'irregular' on basis of an A-only word grammar [Timm & Schinner 2023, p. 11].