13-05-2026, 03:25 PM
I don‘t see how those tables allow the diagnose of something „artificial“.
Someone may assume that k and t
- could be consonants of a natural language
- are predecessed each by one or two out of the most frequent or all vowels of a natural language
- which may themselves are following 1-2 consonants at the beginning position
- or are predecessed by one or two consonants out of a limited, language-appropriate set
- and followed by the „second“ syllable in an equivalent structure.
Assuming these „separating“ characters as consonants, I would see that table more as an instrument to define good candidates for vowels…
Why couldn‘t the k just turn out as, for example, a „T“, the t as a „L“?
You could easily combine vowels and some „fitting“ consonants to them.
And for some possible, but in VMS just not existing „syllable“ combinations, a given natural language would be a better explanation than some artificial lore ipsum.
I think this tries to answer the wrong question, as many „calculating“ analyses.
The question should be:
which natural languages come with such a limited set of beginner and ender characters, a necessary alphabet of not much more than 22 letters, and a tendency of slight variations within words to express differentiations?
Someone may assume that k and t
- could be consonants of a natural language
- are predecessed each by one or two out of the most frequent or all vowels of a natural language
- which may themselves are following 1-2 consonants at the beginning position
- or are predecessed by one or two consonants out of a limited, language-appropriate set
- and followed by the „second“ syllable in an equivalent structure.
Assuming these „separating“ characters as consonants, I would see that table more as an instrument to define good candidates for vowels…
Why couldn‘t the k just turn out as, for example, a „T“, the t as a „L“?
You could easily combine vowels and some „fitting“ consonants to them.
And for some possible, but in VMS just not existing „syllable“ combinations, a given natural language would be a better explanation than some artificial lore ipsum.
I think this tries to answer the wrong question, as many „calculating“ analyses.
The question should be:
which natural languages come with such a limited set of beginner and ender characters, a necessary alphabet of not much more than 22 letters, and a tendency of slight variations within words to express differentiations?